The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Beskar]

:laugh4:

Yes, of course, I forgot. All the other parties are Sainted Martyrs. :dizzy2:

Nah, they have to be dead first. We aren't that lucky.

[Furunculus]

What I find particularly amusing is the sight of Conservatives who have worked up a froth demanding that the people of Britain must have a referendum on Europe, because they must be allowed to decide how they are governed - are simultaneously worked up into a froth about refusing the people of Britain a referendum on Electoral Reform, because they can't be allowed to decide how they are governed.
:laugh4::

i'd be happy to have that referendum, and i'd be happy to see the Con's campaign against PR.

if PR did win and was adopted then I foresee a swift disintegration of the UK as the english would be livid they never got a decisively right-wing government again. england is significantly more right-wing than the country as a whole.

i like FPTP because it is decisive, it give power and mandate to make change, and it allows punishment of failed change.


Self-interest, it is the Conservative way.

lol, and what reason would you supply for labours reason for wishing to keep FPTP? roflmao!

[Idaho]

:laugh4:

Yes, of course, I forgot. All the other parties are Sainted Martyrs. :dizzy2:

All politicians are self serving - but the Tories have made an art form of it over the centuries.

[Banquo's Ghost]

i'd be happy to have that referendum, and i'd be happy to see the Con's campaign against PR.

if PR did win and was adopted then I foresee a swift disintegration of the UK as the english would be livid they never got a decisively right-wing government again. england is significantly more right-wing than the country as a whole.

i like FPTP because it is decisive, it give power and mandate to make change, and it allows punishment of failed change.

I'd agree with you, which is why I find it silly that the party seems to be in collective hysteria at the very thought. It would be good for the country to form a stable Conservative administration with the Liberals, on the basis of holding a referendum on electoral reform in two years - with the Tories campaigning against. I think they could make a very solid case for FPTP and it would have a renewed legitimacy if won at a referendum. I'm not a fan of referenda in most cases, but I have said that both on Europe and Electoral reform, such an approach is legitimate and each side should persuade their position to the voters for legitimacy.

I don't agree that there would be anything like a disintegration of the UK if electoral reform is adopted. The British are far too mature a democracy, and if it is a Con-Lib partnership that ushers in such a change, it shows that my earlier contention of a progressive monopoly is decisively wrong. Your theory of the Liberals being the counterweight, and one that swings between right and left depending on the electorate's desire to control excess, would be further proven correct even in coalitions. This is the moment where the Liberals can show themselves to be a real party, and one that can exist in partnership with either main wing.

Anyway, there's no such thing as a livid Englishman. His lip may tremble with disdain from time to time, but revolt? Sir, are you French? :wink:

[Banquo's Ghost]

All politicians are self serving - but the Tories have made an art form of it over the centuries.

Well, there is certainly the argument that preferring indivdual responsibility can be described as self-serving whereas one therefore supposes state rule for the collective is not. Not an argument that I would embrace, but there we are.

I suppose therefore we should be grateful that despite his comprehensive rejection by the voters, Brown hanging on down to the cuticles is an act of self-sacrifice that will save us all. May God Bless him, and the little pinky by which he clings. :beam:

[Furunculus]

I'd agree with you, which is why I find it silly that the party seems to be in collective hysteria at the very thought. It would be good for the country to form a stable Conservative administration with the Liberals, on the basis of holding a referendum on electoral reform in two years - with the Tories campaigning against. I think they could make a very solid case for FPTP and it would have a renewed legitimacy if won at a referendum. I'm not a fan of referenda in most cases, but I have said that both on Europe and Electoral reform, such an approach is legitimate and each side should persuade their position to the voters for legitimacy.

I don't agree that there would be anything like a disintegration of the UK if electoral reform is adopted. The British are far too mature a democracy, and if it is a Con-Lib partnership that ushers in such a change, it shows that my earlier contention of a progressive monopoly is decisively wrong. Your theory of the Liberals being the counterweight, and one that swings between right and left depending on the electorate's desire to control excess, would be further proven correct even in coalitions. This is the moment where the Liberals can show themselves to be a real party, and one that can exist in partnership with either main wing.

Anyway, there's no such thing as a livid Englishman. His lip may tremble with disdain from time to time, but revolt? Sir, are you French? :wink:

the difference between me and the tories is that I am right-wing first and tory as a result whereas they are tory-first and right-wing as their logical allegience. thus the difference between between me myself and them on PR, they would never get to have a tory majority again, whereas I would get right-wing governments frequently. still, that doesn't change the fact that I believe PR to be a lesser form of governance and would be perfectly happy to keep FPTP.

it would certainly lead to a far more rapid separation of powers between england and its satellites. the liberals do have the potential to be a serious party for the progressive cause, and one without all the chippy class-warfare nonsense of labour, and four years as a coalition government would force the lib-dems to seriously assess their need to represent a useful majority of the electorate, and thus ditch their loonier policies. i would welcome that, though i would have preferred they achieved the same end by displacing labour in the popular vote and spending five years as a serious opposition.

yes, i am sure it will be a more civilised affair than across the water in france, but the resentment in england over the west lothian question is a real and growing thing, and it would become moreso if PR led to an even greater dominance of english affairs by progressive politics.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Universal election reform = that which benefits my party to the detriment of my opponents.

[Beskar]

the difference between me and the tories is that I am right-wing first and tory as a result whereas they are tory-first and right-wing as their logical allegience. thus the difference between between me myself and them on PR, they would never get to have a tory majority again, whereas I would get right-wing governments frequently. still, that doesn't change the fact that I believe PR to be a lesser form of governance and would be perfectly happy to keep FPTP.

This is going to get confusing, especially when people are calling both STV and Party Lists as PR. Party Lists is a terrible system, on the otherhand, STV is a good system. But me and Furunculus agree on something again, apparently according to these surveys, I am a raging socialist just because I don't think we should discriminate against people with different colour skin, or should be exploited by those with power. I have to admit, makes me wonder what boxes you have to tick to be a right-wing on many of the surveys.


it would certainly lead to a far more rapid separation of powers between england and its satellites. the liberals do have the potential to be a serious party for the progressive cause, and one without all the chippy class-warfare nonsense of labour, and four years as a coalition government would force the lib-dems to seriously assess their need to represent a useful majority of the electorate, and thus ditch their loonier policies. i would welcome that, though i would have preferred they achieved the same end by displacing labour in the popular vote and spending five years as a serious opposition.

yes, i am sure it will be a more civilised affair than across the water in france, but the resentment in england over the west lothian question is a real and growing thing, and it would become moreso if PR led to an even greater dominance of english affairs by progressive politics.

I am all far kicking out the quango's and brining through the regional government, and devolving power from Westminister. This makes the day-to-day in London ran by London, day-to-day in York ran by York, etc. Leave the national issues to the national parliament, aka, Westminister.

I would also like to see a scrapping of the divides between Scotland/Wales/etc. The national government is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, all seperately.

[Beskar]

Also, this isn't me, I swear it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8670022.stm

[Furunculus]

This is going to get confusing, especially when people are calling both STV and Party Lists as PR. Party Lists is a terrible system, on the otherhand, STV is a good system. But me and Furunculus agree on something again, apparently according to these surveys, I am a raging socialist just because I don't think we should discriminate against people with different colour skin, or should be exploited by those with power. I have to admit, makes me wonder what boxes you have to tick to be a right-wing on many of the surveys.


at what point were right-wing parties for discrimation of people of differnt colour?

the tories never have been, and UKIP aren't to my knowledge advocating that either?

i am absolutely discrimination in favour of nationality; i.e. i encourage a british government that considers the welfare of ITS citizens first, and works to achieve the British national interest.
this means that if a significant minority of the population feel adversely affected by uncontrolled immigration (as has been the case from 1997 to 2007) then it is the governments job to restablish control to ameliorate the impact of immigration. it's what labour was doing (belatedly) and it is what the tory's were proposing.
this means looking to maximise Britain's influence in world affairs, which is what labour are considering doing (with trident and the Contributory/Global Guardian doctrine), and what the tory's are considering doing (with trident and the Strategic Raiding doctrine), but their is no indication that the lib-dems see their priorities here.

if this makes me 'racist' or 'ultra-nationalist' in the eyes of some then so be it, i quite frankly view their ideas as even more ridiculous (transnational progressivism).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think PR would actually be more generous to parties like the BNP. If you set the quota at something like 8,000 votes (possibly to high?) the BNP would still win relatively few seats plus, unless it's an inner city working class area, I can't see anyone putting the BNP high up as they rank their candidates in order of preference.

I'm sorry, perhaps i am not being clear; I dislike PR even more than STV for exactly that reason. The greatest advantage for FPTP is that is almost completely excludes loons, and when they do get in it is a real sign that the main parties are losing the popular mandate.


What I find particularly amusing is the sight of Conservatives who have worked up a froth demanding that the people of Britain must have a referendum on Europe, because they must be allowed to decide how they are governed - are simultaneously worked up into a froth about refusing the people of Britain a referendum on Electoral Reform, because they can't be allowed to decide how they are governed.

:laugh4::

Well, that's Patriachalism for you, isn't it? Still Labour, has the opposite opinion of both issues. So they are just as bad!


Well, there is certainly the argument that preferring indivdual responsibility can be described as self-serving whereas one therefore supposes state rule for the collective is not. Not an argument that I would embrace, but there we are.

I suppose therefore we should be grateful that despite his comprehensive rejection by the voters, Brown hanging on down to the cuticles is an act of self-sacrifice that will save us all. May God Bless him, and the little pinky by which he clings. :beam:

This is why I loathe Labour, they personify the State and then claim to serve it.


it would certainly lead to a far more rapid separation of powers between england and its satellites. the liberals do have the potential to be a serious party for the progressive cause, and one without all the chippy class-warfare nonsense of labour, and four years as a coalition government would force the lib-dems to seriously assess their need to represent a useful majority of the electorate, and thus ditch their loonier policies. i would welcome that, though i would have preferred they achieved the same end by displacing labour in the popular vote and spending five years as a serious opposition.

I think the great issue is that England is politically different, but the lack of an analogous parliament prevents that from being expressed. Labour only have a hope of forming a government because of their Scottish and Welsh strongholds; that is a serious problem for our democracy.

[Furunculus]

I think the great issue is that England is politically different, but the lack of an analogous parliament prevents that from being expressed. Labour only have a hope of forming a government because of their Scottish and Welsh strongholds; that is a serious problem for our democracy.

and a serious threat to the Union.....................

[Beskar]

at what point were right-wing parties for discrimation of people of differnt colour?

Well, the far-right definitely are. However, I never said they were, I simply said that putting on these surveys as advocating discrimination or exploitation makes you some raving far-left socialist anarchist, since that is basically what I tick. Which I then said "I wonder what you have to put, to be the right-wing".


i am absolutely discrimination in favour of nationality; i.e. i encourage a british government that considers the welfare of ITS citizens first, and works to achieve the British national interest.
this means that if a significant minority of the population feel adversely affected by uncontrolled immigration (as has been the case from 1997 to 2007) then it is the governments job to restablish control to ameliorate the impact of immigration. it's what labour was doing (belatedly) and it is what the tory's were proposing.
this means looking to maximise Britain's influence in world affairs, which is what labour are considering doing (with trident and the Contributory/Global Guardian doctrine), and what the tory's are considering doing (with trident and the Strategic Raiding doctrine), but their is no indication that the lib-dems see their priorities here.


I agree with putting the citizens of an area before outsiders, especially on a ecological sustainability point of view. Britain is far beyond that point, as to where we are dependent on other nations in order to get our fix. One of the reasons I am an advocate of Europe is because Europe together is ecologically sustainable. While some people are saying about capping immigration, admittedly, we are at the point we should seriously consider a two-child policy and no more. If you want more kids, you have no government assistance inregards to them. (aka, get the snip,etc)

I wikipedia'd Transnational Progressivism. I expected to find something agreed with, but I actually don't agree with it. The only area I can say I actually agree with, is the destruction of the constructed socio-political states into a world government. For example:


Change in institutional values: "the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented" within dominant social and political institutions.
This is where I disagree. I believe in concepts such as a International Language, for example, how English is the Lingua franca. Everyone should be taught this language as their primarily language (either it be English, or a constructed language), anything else is for something to do in their spare time. (like Welsh, not even the Welsh speak Welsh.)

However, some other ideas like gender gets tricky. All I have to say, have dealt followed by the values I hold, which other entities posses, like Secular Humanism. If two guys want to get funky in the bedroom, let them. It is up to them, not the government. I even extend this to marriage, as in, remove it from the government hands. If people want a religious ceramony for joining, let them go to a church, up to them. Same for civil unions, they are just a mindless waste of red-tape.

[Beskar]

I think the great issue is that England is politically different, but the lack of an analogous parliament prevents that from being expressed. Labour only have a hope of forming a government because of their Scottish and Welsh strongholds; that is a serious problem for our democracy.

We are 'Britain' we are not 'England'. National issues involve everyone, such as foriegn affairs amongst other things. Labour also has huge support inside London (strangely) and in the North. While I agree on regional issues such be addressed by regional representatives, hence why I keep advocating kicking out the quangos, so we can do just that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

if PR did win and was adopted then I foresee a swift disintegration of the UK as the english would be livid they never got a decisively right-wing government again. england is significantly more right-wing than the country as a whole.

There have been recent studies that have debunked this myth, and shown that the difference between England and Scotland is negligable. On some of the more social rather than economic issues, Scotland was even a bit more to the right. I suspect that the Unionist half of Northern Ireland is at least as right-wing as England, if not quite a bit more.

Not so sure about Wales, since unlike Scotland, it has in the past managed to achieve actual Labour majorities. But even then, as with Scotland, I suspect the Labour support stems more from party identification than major ideological differences.

[therother]

The outcome is fascinating, that's for sure, especially factoring in the medium to longer term issues. Although I'm surprised I've not really heard much about them from the pundits and the media though. It's a shame, they all seem to be focusing on what will happen next week...

Anyway, concerning the Conservative predicament, it strikes me that David Cameron is in a weak position with his party, far too weak to be able to actually deliver wide-scale electoral reform or indeed any of the Liberal Democrat central issues. And if the Liberals allow the Conservatives to govern without getting major concessions on these issues (particularly with what seems a more generous offer from their more natural allies, Labour), it could well spell electoral suicide for them: whilst plenty of people didn't want to vote Clegg, get Brown, I imagine the number of people who voted for Nick Clegg but would be happy with Cameron is substantially smaller. Even if Clegg is able to persuade his MPs and executive committee to back a deal, it seems unlikely he could hold it together for long. After all, on the key policy issues Cameron outlined on Friday, the Tories actually have more in common with Labour...

Which is one reason I find this "strong, stable" government line from both Tories and the Liberals to be somewhat puzzling. A Tory-Liberal pact cannot last that long without Cameron compromising on issues the rest of the Tory party simply won't stomach. For all the talk of a great Cameron victory, I think his party know in reality it was not: with a very unpopular Labour PM, the economy in a very bad state (which they could personally pin on the former Chancellor), and with a general disaffection with Labour over issues such as the Iraq war, this was an ideal chance for the Tories to win a substantial majority with a 40%+ vote share. Cameron didn't even get 40% in England, and that it may well be that the Tories will never get a better opportunity to form a majority government. In getting only 36% of the votes, demonstrates that his previous large leads in the opinion polls turned out to be soft. The debates suggested that last month, and the election has confirmed it.

Another option raised, usually by Tories, is a minority Conservative government without any agreement with the Liberals. I can't see how this could succeed. Unlike the SNP in Scotland, which bar independence broadly agrees with most other parties on the major issues and is therefore able to government relatively successfully on an issue by issue basis, the Tories essentially have no natural allies in Parliament. If they were to attempt to put forward a legislative programme based on their manifesto, then it would in all likelihood be voted down by Labour and the Liberals, whose combined voting block exceeds the Tories. Even if the DUP's 8 MPs came to Cameron's aid, it would be likely that the SNP and other parties hostile to the Tories would rally to the Lib-Lab side. In which case the Queen would be forced to either ask Labour to form a coalition or call a new election. At least 52% voted for a centre-left agenda. 36% voted for a Conservative one. If the Tories attempt to form a minority government, knowing that it will be inherently unstable and be subject to a no-confidence motion at almost any time, without allowing a possible Lib-Lab coalition, then it would be difficult to see how such a government could be in "national interest" at this time of "crisis"?

Concerning reforming the electoral system, both the Labour and LD parties stood on a platform of reform (Labour for alternative vote, Liberals STV). They got more seats than the Tories and substantially more votes. If more seats and more votes equals a mandate… In addition, when directly asked the question about reforming the system, opinion polls put support for a change at over 50%. Which is why, I imagine, the Tories don’t want a referendum.

Playing around with the numbers, is the goal really 326 MPs, ie half plus one of the 650 total? What really matters is can the Government get more than the opposition on key votes. With Sinn Fein unlikely to sit in parliament (at least without a change of the oath), this means there will only be 645 voting MPs, or 623 for a majority. Tories have 307 (including the seat they will likely win at the end of the month), Labour have 258, LDs 57, DUP 8, SNP 6, PC 3, SDLP 3, Green 1, and Alliance 1. A Lib-Lab agreement would command, itself, 258+57+3 SDLP+1 Alliance= 619, or 4 short of a de facto majority but 12 more than the Tories. The question becomes, will the SNP or Plaid Cymru or the Green MP vote with the Tories? I think it's highly unlikely, just coming up to a Scottish Parliament election, that the SNP would risk voting with the Conservatives as they must know the almost visceral hatred the Tories still engender in Scotland. The SNP suffered electorally when they brought down the Labour government of Jim Callaghan in 1979, and that was before Margaret Thatcher essentially lost Scotland for the Tories for at least a generation, so the backlash could easily cost them the Scottish parliament.

I do think that Nick Clegg and David Cameron personally like each other and think they could genuinely work together, certainly better than they could with Gordon Brown. But unless Clegg and Cameron put on a dazzling display of political legerdemain that manages to blind their parties to the harsh political realities of a Tory-Lib deal, I'm thinking that the only viable solution is a short term Lib-Lab pact. They could plan to quickly reform the electoral system and implement their similar policies for dealing with the national debt, with a mind to an early election with the new voting system.

[Idaho]

I suppose therefore we should be grateful that despite his comprehensive rejection by the voters, Brown hanging on down to the cuticles is an act of self-sacrifice that will save us all. May God Bless him, and the little pinky by which he clings. :beam:

Now this annoys me. This is the kind of crap that the pro-Tory media have been spouting. It's nonsense on a number of levels.

a) The acting PM has to stay in place until the Queen invites someone to form a government. You can't just leave the country leaderless.
b) 1% less share of the vote than the previous election does not amount to a comprehensive rejection anywhere outside the editorial meetings of Murdoch newspapers.


Well, there is certainly the argument that preferring indivdual responsibility can be described as self-serving whereas one therefore supposes state rule for the collective is not. Not an argument that I would embrace, but there we are.
The Tories don't want individual responsibility, they just don't want any impediment to leveraging power via their wealth.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, there is certainly the argument that preferring indivdual responsibility can be described as self-serving whereas one therefore supposes state rule for the collective is not. Not an argument that I would embrace, but there we are.

I suppose therefore we should be grateful that despite his comprehensive rejection by the voters, Brown hanging on down to the cuticles is an act of self-sacrifice that will save us all. May God Bless him, and the little pinky by which he clings. :beam:Well Brown can scarcely leave No. 10 just like that. He would hand over LibDem to the Cons, grossly undermine their bargaining power. As long as Brown/Clegg can threaten a leftwing coalition, Cameron can;t call all the shots on his own.

Such a pity Lab-LibDem-others are some ten seats short of a viable coalition. Not just to see them in government, but to threaten a real alternative to keep the Tories in check.

[Furunculus]

The Tories don't want individual responsibility, they just don't want any impediment to leveraging power via their wealth.

^ utter testicles ^

[Beskar]

Actually, there is a tactic to Brown being in number 10, he is stopping David Cameron from just walking in and taking over. Hence, he is holding it for a Con-Lib pact or a Lab-Lib pact, which would weaken the Tories position.

However, I believe Gordon Brown has remarked on stepping down if a Lab-Lib pact does happen.


^ utter testicles ^

As some one put it "We want votes, not moats!" :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree with putting the citizens of an area before outsiders, especially on a ecological sustainability point of view. Britain is far beyond that point, as to where we are dependent on other nations in order to get our fix. One of the reasons I am an advocate of Europe is because Europe together is ecologically sustainable. While some people are saying about capping immigration, admittedly, we are at the point we should seriously consider a two-child policy and no more. If you want more kids, you have no government assistance inregards to them. (aka, get the snip,etc)

While you think in "areas" everyone else thinks in "Nations", theoretically homogenous groups of people bound together by shared values and culture. So your basic value judgement here is faulty. You have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as you believe it should be.


This is where I disagree. I believe in concepts such as a International Language, for example, how English is the Lingua franca. Everyone should be taught this language as their primarily language (either it be English, or a constructed language), anything else is for something to do in their spare time. (like Welsh, not even the Welsh speak Welsh.)

Believe me, the Welsh speak Welsh, they also swear in it; I can tell you that from personal experience. Using English as the "International Language" is totally impractical, because it's a national language; it would amount to cultural triunphalism. Any attempt to impose a standard language is (rightly) seen that way, Lingua Franca actually means "language of the Franks" i.e. Charlamanic Latin-French.


We are 'Britain' we are not 'England'. National issues involve everyone, such as foriegn affairs amongst other things. Labour also has huge support inside London (strangely) and in the North. While I agree on regional issues such be addressed by regional representatives, hence why I keep advocating kicking out the quangos, so we can do just that.

That depends on how you define "we", Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are recognised as seperate cultural entities, they also have their own assemblies. England deserves the same recognition by default.

[LittleGrizzly]

Believe me, the Welsh speak Welsh, they also swear in it; I can tell you that from personal experience.

Not down south around bridgend, newport and cardiff way. Meeting someone who speaks welsh is something of a novelty where I live, even the majority of my friends can say more in other langauges than Welsh. Maybe its different in mid wales and the north but the two places I have lived in the south have very very few welsh speakers, off the top of my head I now as many people fluent in polish as welsh (two incase your intrested) When I still went to school a girl came joined our year who could speak welsh and it was a novelty to everyone, outside of her there wasn't a single fluent person in my year.

Also less sure on this one, but im sure a fluent friend told me there are no swear words in welsh, you could construct an insulting sentence but theres no actual swear words... my memorys a little hazy there though...

[Furunculus]

in mid-wales which is supposedly very welshy, i often come across the chippy-welsh types who will deliberately try to talk in welsh to make a point of excluding any english, but even they often cannot comfortably converse with their friends as easily as they could in english.

[Furunculus]

news on reform:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7703187/Hung-parliament-Camerons-PR-coup-to-wrong-foot-Labour.html



Hung parliament: Cameron’s PR coup to wrong-foot Labour
The full extent of David Cameron's audacity is beginning to emerge.


Benedict Brogan
Published: 11:57PM BST 09 May 2010

He is offering to trade reform of the voting system for a two-year deal with Nick Clegg that would deliver economic and social change and, in particular, the painful cuts needed to reduce the deficit. Suddenly, it is the Conservatives who are the radicals.

Until now the Liberal Democrats looked to Labour to deliver "fair votes" – their catchphrase for replacing the existing first-past-the-post system with something that better matches the number of votes cast with the number of seats each party gets in the Commons. Tony Blair led them up the garden path before 1997, only to go back on his word once he was safely in No 10 with a thumping majority.

Now in a twist that is causing consternation among some Tories, it is Mr Cameron who is in a position to deliver what Labour could not: a new way of electing MPs, which might be just enough to persuade Mr Clegg to throw in his lot with the Conservatives. The power-sharing deal could make Mr Cameron prime minister within 48 hours.

Just as it took the Right-wing Likud Party in Israel to broker peace with Egypt, or the Tories to start peace talks with the IRA, so it looks as if Mr Cameron has bucked convention in an attempt to redefine British politics in his favour.

Insiders say his priority is to agree a formal deal, possibly even a coalition, with Mr Clegg that would secure Lib Dem agreement for Tory proposals to reform the education and welfare systems and, in particular, for immediate spending cuts.

In exchange he would agree to hold a referendum on the proposals for voting reform developed by a new commission of inquiry that would conclude during this Parliament.

The Lib Dem statement last night that any agreement would have "deficit reduction and a credible plan for economic recovery" at its heart was taken as encouragement that Mr Cameron's pitch was working, even if the country and, more importantly, the markets may have to wait a bit longer for the "stable government" all sides are promising.

Tonight he will address his parliamentary party, including the 106 newly elected MPs who find

themselves being consulted in a Commons drama before they have even acquired their passes to the building.

But what exactly is he asking them to endorse?

Some on the Right fear that he is going to water down his pledge to insist on repatriating powers from Brussels. Others are horrified by the idea of giving seats around the Cabinet table to the Liberal Democrats.

Many want assurances that he is not about to abandon the party’s long-standing opposition to proportional representation.

And there are some who regard the uncertain outcome of the election as a reason to air their grievances about the way the Tory campaign was run. They see this as their chance to hit back at the tightly knit circle around Mr Cameron.

They reject the leadership’s boast that he produced a historic achievement with the best gain in seats since 1931 and a swing on a par with Margaret Thatcher’s in 1979.

Instead they say the campaign in the marginals was a costly failure that produced patchy results; that Mr Cameron was wrong to agree to televised debates that gave Nick Clegg a momentary advantage; and that the party’s manifesto — in particular, the notion of a Big Society — was too confusing for voters. They point out that a 36 per cent share of the vote was scarcely better than what John Major achieved when the Tories were crushed in 1997.

More simply, many Tory MPs question why a deal has to be done with the Lib Dems at all. They argue that, despite the hype of the debates, the party lost seats and emerged even weaker. With Labour contaminated by failure and the continued presence of Gordon Brown, Mr Clegg is a kingmaker but with only one king to make.

Tory whips spent the weekend telephoning MPs to take soundings on voting reform. Mr Cameron called party grandees on Saturday night to assure them that he remained steadfastly opposed to any form of proportional representation. By offering backbenchers a free vote in the Commons on whether there should be a referendum, he knows nearly all of them will vote “no”, and may find enough anti-reform Labour MPs to form a blocking majority.

But senior sources speculate that he could eventually offer the Lib Dems a form of electoral reform based on the additional vote system (AV) or even the AV-plus devised by the Lib Dem peer Lord Jenkins – and rejected by Mr Blair – more than a decade ago. Both maintain the constituency link that Tories say is essential, and both require voters to express a second preference.

For the Tories this would kill off the UK Independence Party vote which cost them an estimated 21 seats last week – enough to give them a majority. Even far-Right Tories have spotted this opportunity.

Mr Cameron is focused on delivering what his party wants: power.

To that end he is prepared to deal in ways that some in his party find hard to swallow.

Officially, there has been no offer so far on electoral reform but he also wants certainty that his Lib Dem allies will vote with him in the Commons when it matters.

He wants to bind them in to the hard decisions ahead. To that end he is prepared to go much further than his party perhaps realises.

But he also recognises that he has been presented with a chance to recast the Conservatives as the party of the centre that is keeping pace with public demands — if not for the obscurities of PR, then for a new politics in which leaders act pragmatically in the national interest.

There are more negotiations to come. It may be that Mr Clegg is the one who will face greater difficulties in persuading his party to do a deal that requires them to share responsibility for the pain.

Labour has offered to ditch Gordon Brown in exchange for a coalition. In which case Mr Cameron will go it alone, knowing that when the next election comes, possibly this year, no one will be able to fault his willingness to try anything to deliver stable government.

[naut]

England deserves the same recognition by default.
What you are essentially saying is that you want the same thing we have here in Australia. Federal and State government, where in your case the states will be NI, Wales, Scotland and England.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now this annoys me. This is the kind of crap that the pro-Tory media have been spouting. It's nonsense on a number of levels.

a) The acting PM has to stay in place until the Queen invites someone to form a government. You can't just leave the country leaderless.
b) 1% less share of the vote than the previous election does not amount to a comprehensive rejection anywhere outside the editorial meetings of Murdoch newspapers.

Whilst there is some constitutional robustness to your point of view, the reality is that Brown would be unable to form a government even with the Liberals unless assorted nationalists were bought by enormous transfers of spending to their provinces. Even then, such a coalition would be almost unsustainable. The Conservatives know how weak Clegg is in relation to threatening to go to Labour (a Government of Losers) and Brown's temper tantrum the other day directed at Clegg for daring to talk to the Tories, didn't really help his cause, I fear.

Losing a hundred seats counts as a fair rejection, methinks. Considering Blair's 2005 victory was based in the lowest share of the vote for a governing party, and the extraordinary gerrymandering of seats, and the fact the Brown has never had an endorsement from an election in his own party or the country, I think the legitimacy of any Brown administration is suspect at best.


The Tories don't want individual responsibility, they just don't want any impediment to leveraging power via their wealth.

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

Not at all what is expected, what.:toff:

[rory_20_uk]

What you are essentially saying is that you want the same thing we have here in Australia. Federal and State government, where in your case the states will be NI, Wales, Scotland and England.

Not rocket science, is it? Seems to work for loads of other countries.
I'm not that bothered in seeing the Union break up if all it is is subsidies to the Welsh and the Scots whilst they bitch about England.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

Not at all what is expected, what.:toff:

Yes, but you see, the thing is she was upwardly mobile, but in a bad way as she ended up in a party that oppressed the poor as she reduced the handouts available to them as the State knows what they want better than the individual does (occasionally the individual is wrong, of course).

Giving them their own homes reduces the number of homes that are available to be given out by the government, which are intrinically better as when owned by the government they are part of the Social Housing stock which can be used to help the Poor whereas ownership might stop them being poor, which is counterproductive...

Simples...

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

Not at all what is expected, what.:toff:Bollox - to quote the most useful Irish phrase I've ever learned.

Thatcher has destroyed the British lower classes. Income inequality in Britain is now back to the level it was in Dickens' time.
Social mobility is the lowest in Europe. Talent is no longer decisive for succes in Britain. Your parents' class is.

[Furunculus]

Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

Not at all what is expected, what.:toff:

unlike Louis, I am full agreement with the sentiment.

this irrational thatcher hatred is deeply unhealthy for those who exhibit it, especially for Brits for whom it makes an actual difference.

[rory_20_uk]

Income disparity doe not mean happiness. Zombabwe got close to equal income with almost everyone starving to death. North Korea and Cuba are also good on income disparity.
Talent had long gone by Thatcher's time. Oh, and that was over 15 years ago. Odd that it was not fixed under Labour...

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I fear she must also have destroyed a sense of humour right across Europe. :bounce:

[Idaho]

Brown has never had an endorsement from an election in his own party or the country, I think the legitimacy of any Brown administration is suspect at best.

I don't think you can vote for Brown unless you are an elector in his constituency. We vote for the local candidate, and leave it up to them who they make leader. Unless you are one of these frightful oiks who think our electoral system makes no sense.


Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.

You mean selling off social housing and removing mental health provision so that we now have a massive homeless/begging problem that was unheard of 30 years ago?

And by reducing the tax burden... I assume you are getting confused about which sections of society actually pay the most tax.

[al Roumi]

Income disparity doe not mean happiness. Zombabwe got close to equal income with almost everyone starving to death. North Korea and Cuba are also good on income disparity.
Talent had long gone by Thatcher's time. Oh, and that was over 15 years ago. Odd that it was not fixed under Labour...

Or not, how long do you think it takes for generational change to show through?

[rory_20_uk]

So... it can be caused by the Tories in about 12 years, but not resolved by Labour in almost the same length of time...

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

@ rory Check your history my good man income can be destroyed in seconds but can take years even centuries to repair especially if an entire way of life or system of production is removed

[al Roumi]

So... it can be caused by the Tories in about 12 years, but not resolved by Labour in almost the same length of time...

Honestly? I imagine we are only now living through the implications of Thatcherism.

If you think of the changes labour made -on education, health, job-seekers' allowance etc, they were never going to result in an immediate step change in equality. It'll take the kids and young people who went through Labour's reforms to grow, graduate, get jobs and settle for their impact to show -for good or worse.

[Furunculus]

i'd hate to see the state of this country if we hadn't had thatcher, it might bear a striking resemblance to 1990's east germany.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Believe me, the Welsh speak Welsh, they also swear in it; I can tell you that from personal experience.

Not down south around bridgend, newport and cardiff way. Meeting someone who speaks welsh is something of a novelty where I live, even the majority of my friends can say more in other langauges than Welsh. Maybe its different in mid wales and the north but the two places I have lived in the south have very very few welsh speakers, off the top of my head I now as many people fluent in polish as welsh (two incase your intrested) When I still went to school a girl came joined our year who could speak welsh and it was a novelty to everyone, outside of her there wasn't a single fluent person in my year.

Also less sure on this one, but im sure a fluent friend told me there are no swear words in welsh, you could construct an insulting sentence but theres no actual swear words... my memorys a little hazy there though...


in mid-wales which is supposedly very welshy, i often come across the chippy-welsh types who will deliberately try to talk in welsh to make a point of excluding any english, but even they often cannot comfortably converse with their friends as easily as they could in english.

Ah boys, try living with a Welsh womean for two years; it's a wild Celtic rollacoaster.

Just take my work for it, ok, there are 600,000 native-Welsh speakers in Wales, so Beskar claim that, "not even the Welsh speak Welsh" is incorrect, perhaps even tautological given that the Welsh-speakers define "Welshness" as use of said language.


What you are essentially saying is that you want the same thing we have here in Australia. Federal and State government, where in your case the states will be NI, Wales, Scotland and England.

No, I'd rather just have the one Parliament; and effective County Councils.


Bollox - to quote the most useful Irish phrase I've ever learned.

Thatcher has destroyed the British lower classes. Income inequality in Britain is now back to the level it was in Dickens' time.
Social mobility is the lowest in Europe. Talent is no longer decisive for succes in Britain. Your parents' class is.

Coolius, to quote the most useful Latin phrase I ever learned. If anyone destroyed the working class is was Labour, when they used unhealthy sbsidies to hold up dying industries. All Thatcher did was pull the life-support 20 years later and put the patient out of its misery. Had Labour indulged in more sanguine ecenomic practices during the 50's and 60's we might have aBritish ship-building industry today.

[al Roumi]

i'd hate to see the state of this country if we hadn't had thatcher, it might bear a striking resemblance to 1990's east germany.

Yeah, we'd have teh STASI and everything.

[Furunculus]

Yeah, we'd have teh STASI and everything.

1990's being post-Stasi under most contemporary views of recent history, no?

i was more referring to a poverty stricken post-industrial wasteland:

https://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q114/charlesfrith/798/IMG_0035.jpg

[al Roumi]

1990's being post-Stasi under most contemporary views of recent history, no?

i was more referring to a poverty stricken post-industrial wasteland:

https://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q114/charlesfrith/798/IMG_0035.jpg

ERm, yes...? :blush:

So who was it wot boosted the UK's switch from manufacturing to services, and in particular the city?

[rory_20_uk]

There's still time: ballooning debt, off balance sheet pensions and good old PFI.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

ERm, yes...? :blush:

So who was it wot boosted the UK's switch from manufacturing to services, and in particular the city?

what your missing is the fact that this situation would persist today, with moribund industries propped up on life-support with ever more ridiculous public subsidy.

those services generate a vast amount of tax revenue which labour has poured back into its social programs in stupendous quantities, rant against the financial services sector after you have implemented a better alternative, not before.

we would all be much poorer today had we not had thatcher, but our poorness might be more equal if that makes you feel better.......................?

[al Roumi]

what your missing is the fact that this situation would persist today, with moribund industries propped up on life-support with ever more ridiculous public subsidy.

those services generate a vast amount of tax revenue which labour has poured back into its social programs in stupendous quantities, rant against the financial services sector after you have implemented a better alternative, not before.

we would all be much poorer today had we not had thatcher, but our poorness might be more equal if that makes you feel better.......................?

Yes UK manufacturing was no-longer competitive (crudely: costs too high, output & quality too low), but are there not ways of improvement which do not entail such a savage diss-embowling? They might have led to there being at least a couple of successful UK owned manufacturing companies.

These services which socialist parties advocate, I take it that you think they are the wrong way to go to improve equality and promote positive social change? That is what they are there for of course, not just to waste public money.

Some state support seems to have been working in France and Germany, they still produce things there!

[Idaho]

i'd hate to see the state of this country if we hadn't had thatcher, it might bear a striking resemblance to 1990's east germany.

Or a striking resemblance to Norway or France.

[Furunculus]

given the state of the UK in the seventies, when it was the sick man of europe, i sincerely doubt that.

[Beskar]

"Gordon Brown announces intention to step down as PM as formal talks are to open between Labour and the Liberal Democrats."

Well good news, whatever the outcome, there is no Gordon Brown.

What would be good if is the Labour-left in particular works with the Lib Dems in any coalition talks, which might actually result in a left-wing Government for a change since these past 30 years or so.

[Furunculus]

if that does happen there will be another election within the year.

and given that the Lib-Dems have announced nothing but micro-detail on a few topics as needing "further clarification" they will be punished at that election if they walk away from the party with the largest mandate, and labour will be further punished for running an ineffective government.

i would be quite happy if the Lib-Dems jump ship now, as the result would be a Conservative majority government before 2011.

[al Roumi]

if that does happen there will be another election within the year.

and given that the Lib-Dems have announced nothing but micro-detail on a few topics as needing "further clarification" they will be punished at that election if they walk away from the party with the largest mandate, and labour will be further punished for running an ineffective government.

i would be quite happy if the Lib-Dems jump ship now, as the result would be a Conservative majority government before 2011.

Quite bullish given the Tories didn't really win outright this time either... :wink:

I'm not quite sure what Brown is proposing... 3 things essentially, which I'm having trouble synchronising in my head:

1) to step down as Labour leader after a labour leadership contest before the autumn coference,

2) form a coalition govt with lib, SNP and Plaid Cymru

3) rule as PM (of the coalition?) until a new labour leader is picked.

All I can think is that this would be TWO unelected labour leaders within 4 years and that the premise or justification for setting up the 2nd's government would also quite ironicaly be to introduce a more democratic voting system. LOL

[Beskar]

and given that the Lib-Dems have announced nothing but micro-detail on a few topics as needing "further clarification" they will be punished at that election if they walk away from the party with the largest mandate, and labour will be further punished for running an ineffective government.

Actually, a coalition of the two would mean the Lib-Lab coalition would have the largest mandate in both seats and votes.

[Furunculus]

the political system exists as it is, which is a first past the post winner takes all system, and the electorates expectations are still governed by this, not as you wish them to be, and the utter failure of the lib-dems to sustain the surge tells me that reform of the voting system wasn't deemed to be very important.

[Beskar]

the political system exists as it is, which is a first past the post winner takes all system, and the electorates expectations are still governed by this, not as you wish them to be, and the utter failure of the lib-dems to sustain the surge tells me that reform of the voting system wasn't deemed to be very important.

Actually, the threat of a Conservative Government was more important, and those who wanted rid of Brown.

Also, I don't tread on Party Lines remember? First Past the Post means those people elected represent those areas first, the party second, therefore them working for the great good, in being in a coalition to better serve the interests of those who elected and of those in the area, is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[tibilicus]

Well the latest developments just reveal how desperate New Labour is. The simple fact is that Labour cannot form a stable government, unless we wish to be held to ransom by the nationalists. This doesn't worry the Labour Party though, a party which would sell its soul to remain in power.

The disgusting attempt to try and pry the Liberals away from what quite frankly is the only sensible arrangement, whether your a Tory or not, shows the extent to which Labour only cares about its own self gain. The simple fact is a Labour rag tag government will have very little legitimacy, will be incredibly unstable and will cost the tax payer billions, or the English tax payer at least, due to the fact the nationalists have put increased funds to their respective countries on the table for any negotiations.

Then again, it might also be a beneficial arrangement, if only to show how our democracy would look under PR, with the backroom deals, the illegitimate governments and the individual parties own desire for power over any electoral endorsement.

[Subotan]

Bollox - to quote the most useful Irish phrase I've ever learned.

Thatcher has destroyed the British lower classes. Income inequality in Britain is now back to the level it was in Dickens' time.
Social mobility is the lowest in Europe. Talent is no longer decisive for succes in Britain. Your parents' class is.
We must know our place.

unlike Louis, I am full agreement with the sentiment.

this irrational thatcher hatred is deeply unhealthy for those who exhibit it, especially for Brits for whom it makes an actual difference.
I live in an area which has a deep, deep hatred of Thatcher. Her legacy is that of folk history, with her persona taking on a similar role to the Devil in Medieval times. And rightly so. Thatcher sank her teeth into the North and ripped out it's throat.


Income disparity doe not mean happiness. Zombabwe got close to equal income with almost everyone starving to death. North Korea and Cuba are also good on income disparity.
Talent had long gone by Thatcher's time. Oh, and that was over 15 years ago. Odd that it was not fixed under Labour...

~:smoking:
North Korea is actually a very unequal society, with Party bosses enjoying extremely high standards of living whilst the majority of North Koreans suffer tremendous abuses. Income equality is not worth Communism.

[Banquo's Ghost]

i would be quite happy if the Lib-Dems jump ship now, as the result would be a Conservative majority government before 2011.

That might prove to be wishful thinking. The Tories have just announced they will give the Liberals a referendum on AV. Almost certainly, the electoral system in Britain is now set to change.

Extraordinary times.

[Subotan]

What's with all the referenda lately? What happened to Parliamentary sovereignty?

[Beskar]

On STV, I thought it was? Only labour wanted AV.

[Banquo's Ghost]

On STV, I thought it was? Only labour wanted AV.

No, it was Alternative Vote (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673807.stm).

There are so many tragedies of Gordon Brown's abysmal premiership, but two stand out: If he had called an election in 2007, he would have been re-elected and thence probably been less volcanic, tortured and had greater stature. The second is that had he stood down two months ago, Labour would probably have won the election outright, since the country clearly didn't much fancy a Tory government.

[Beskar]

For those wanting more information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

What is funny though, is this message from the telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100038995/what-exactly-is-fairer-about-the-alternative-vote/

I also love how he attacks it, based on the Conservatives might lose some seats, but he doesn't comment on how the Lib dems gained significantly more seats, thus being a fairer, as they actually gain a more represention of the seats, according to the voters. Amongst other things. I love his biased journalism.

Also, as one of the commenters says "How can you recast according to Alternate Vote without knowing what people’s second choice would be?". In the same breath, how can you recast not knowing what the voters first choice might have been? For example, UKIP or Green.

[Furunculus]

That might prove to be wishful thinking. The Tories have just announced they will give the Liberals a referendum on AV. Almost certainly, the electoral system in Britain is now set to change.

Extraordinary times.

not wishful thinking, i am happy to tolerate a tory coalition / minority government, as long as someone is there to fulfil a sensible EU policy and a sensible defence policy.

i was merely pointing out that it would be deeply funny if a lib-lab coalition formed in spite of the Tory's putting on the full display of public cooperation with the Lib-Dems on live TV, leaving the electorates most favoured party out in the cold, and then watching that coalition of the unwanted collapse in acrimony, the public would absolutely punish lib and lab by returning a conservative majority.


What's with all the referenda lately? What happened to Parliamentary sovereignty?

as i have been arguing fairly consistently for the last couple of years; i only expect a referendum when the government is proposing to change how i am governed, particularly when they wish to give the authority to a third party, and oddly enough i have seen a lot of talking heads on the TV saying the same thing in the last week.

For those wanting more information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

What is funny though, is this message from the telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100038995/what-exactly-is-fairer-about-the-alternative-vote/

I also love how he attacks it, based on the Conservatives might lose some seats, but he doesn't comment on how the Lib dems gained significantly more seats, thus being a fairer, as they actually gain a more represention of the seats, according to the voters. Amongst other things. I love his biased journalism.

Also, as one of the commenters says "How can you recast according to Alternate Vote without knowing what people’s second choice would be?". In the same breath, how can you recast not knowing what the voters first choice might have been? For example, UKIP or Green.

i read that earlier and thought the same, it is a daft argument; it is no fairer but it is certainly just as unfair as the current system.

regardless, i have no problems with the current system because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion.

[gaelic cowboy]

To be honest I cannot see Cameron letting the Liberals go over to Labour the deal will be struck it is really a case that the British are unused to this lark coalition prob not agreed until midweek I would say

[Furunculus]

much like europe, it is not a goal that is worth any price, cameron has done a wonderful job of appearing conciliatory and accommodating to the lib-dems, and thus mindful of the publics (stupid) wish not to have a commons majority, so he is sitting pretty if there is a lib-lab coalition and its eventual collapse in eight months time. just look at hagues statement on conceding a referendum vote on AV, everything is cooperative and conciliatory, exactly what the electorate said they want, how will it come across if the the lib-dems jump in bed with labour now.................. it will appear crass and opportunistic, and it will be a nail in the coffin of cleggs' 'new' politics agenda.

the tory's have the dems over-a-barrel, they can't lose either way.

but you are correct to not that the game is not over yet, and it may just be tactical positioning from the lib-dems to strengthen their bargaining position.

[Furunculus]

some FCO blowhard leaks a putative tory bargaining position between the UK and the EU, seems pretty accurate to me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/liberal-democrat-tory-coalition-threatened-eurosceptic

and the text of the role-played letter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/tory-eurosceptic-letter-william-hague

[Beskar]

The Lib-dems will probably allow the Tories to do it, as long as they aren't involved in it. The thing is, if the Lib-dems ended up in power next election and the Tories were successful, the Lib-dems now has a bargaining chip with Europe to use for basically "free".

[Furunculus]

The Lib-dems will probably allow the Tories to do it, as long as they aren't involved in it. The thing is, if the Lib-dems ended up in power next election and the Tories were successful, the Lib-dems now has a bargaining chip with Europe to use for basically "free".
que?

[Beskar]

que?

Basically, the Tories want a concession from the EU? So let's say they do that.

This means in the future, the Liberal Democrats now have a bargaining chip, aka, this concession, in order to influence future policy in return to handing it back over to the EU.

[Furunculus]

what an awesome policy idea, i'm sure the electorate will be delighted!

that should go down in BOLD in their manifesto alongside all their other stupid ideas like ditching trident and an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

if they want to be taken seriously, they have to act seriously, and that means realising they are their to represent the electorate rather than play my-little-pony fantasy world.

[tibilicus]

Funny the Tories weren't more supportive of the idea of AV earlier. Here's a list of seats denied to the Tories which they would of won had a UKIP candidate not been standing.

Bolton West: Labour 18,329; Conservative 18,235; UKIP 1,901
Derby North: Labour 14,896; Conservative 14,283; UKIP 829
Derbyshire NE: Labour 17,948: Conservative 15,503; UKIP 2,636
Dorset mid & Poole: Labour 21,100; Conservative 20,831; UKIP 2,109
Dudley North: Labour 14,923; Conservative 14,274; UKIP 3,267
Great Grimsby: Labour 10,777: Conservative 10,063: UKIP 2,043
Hampstead & Kilburn: Labour 17,332; Conservative 17,290; UKIP 408
Middlesbrough South: Labour 18,138; Conservative 16,461; UKIP 1,881
Morley (Ed Balls): Labour 18,365; Conservatives 17,264; UKIP 1,506
Newcastle-Under-Lyme: Labour 16,393; Conservatives 14,841; UKIP 3,491
Plymouth Moor View: Labour 15,433; Conservatives 13,845; UKIP 3,188
Solihull: Liberal 23,635; Conservatives 23,460; UKIP 1,200
Somerton & Frome: Liberal 28,793; Conservatives 26,976; UKIP 1,932
Southampton Itchen: Labour 16,326; Conservatives 16,134; UKIP 1,928
St Austell & Newquay: Liberal 20,189; Conservatives 18,877; UKIP 1,757
St Ives: Liberal 19,619; Conservatives 17,900; UKIP 2,560
Telford: Labour 15,977; Conservatives 14,996; UKIP 2,428
Walsall North: Labour 13,385; Conservatives 12,395; UKIP 1,737
Walsall South: Labour 16,211; Conservatives 14,456; UKIP 3,449
Wells: Liberal 24,560; Conservatives 23,760; UKIP 1,711
Wirral South: Labour 16,276; Conservatives 15,745; UKIP 1,274

Big list..

[Beskar]

Funny the Tories weren't more supportive of the idea of AV earlier. Here's a list of seats denied to the Tories which they would of won had a UKIP candidate not been standing.


Exactly.

Being honest, I can see a UKIP-Conservative coalition in the future, if we end up going down the STV/AV route. I could also picture Furunculus voting for UKIP too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exactly.

Being honest, I can see a UKIP-Conservative coalition in the future, if we end up going down the STV/AV route. I could also picture Furunculus voting for UKIP too.

This has been noted, AV would effectively wipe out the UKIP vote, and would ensure that whoever was elected had a majority.

[Beskar]

This has been noted, AV would effectively wipe out the UKIP vote, and would ensure that whoever was elected had a majority.

How/why so? Why would it wipe out the UKIP vote?

I would see more conservatives voting for UKIP rather than the conservative party. Which would mean that UKIP would get more votes, as I could also see Conservatives putting UKIP down as a 2nd option too, in those instances where they have lesser votes. If UKIP don't win any seats, they would also put down Conservative as their 2nd option. This would obviously enforce the Conservatives power and as tibilicus pointed out, could have got the Cons more seats.

[Furunculus]

I could also picture Furunculus voting for UKIP too.
just so we are clear; i do not currently support the UKIP position that we should leave the EU.

this is on the massive proviso that we have a euroskeptic right-wing party in the mainstream that seeks to keep Britain out of a federal Union, and an EU that is willing to accept that position.

if there is no Tory party pushing for a two speed europe, and no ability to extract such a concession from the EU then, yes, I will become a full-blown UKIP supporter.

the EU is not a priceless goal, and if the price is federal union then the price is not worth paying at all.

to me, UKIP is useful leverage to push the mainstream party in the direction i want, nothing more, at present.

[therother]

Funny the Tories weren't more supportive of the idea of AV earlier. Here's a list of seats denied to the Tories which they would of won had a UKIP candidate not been standing.Two things: a) you are of course assuming that nobody voted Labour or LD as their 2nd choice. Take Bolton West. I'm sure you are right and the vast majority of UKIP voters would vote Conservative second. There are, however, 8,177 LD voters. Recent polls put the split between Labour and Conservative leaning Liberal voters as ~75%/25% Lab/Con nationwide. Assuming that's a fair reflection, this seat would have been solid Labour hold. b) to win a seat with AV, you need a majority of the vote. Conservatives plus the entire UKIP 2nd vote would only give 42.3% of the vote. They would still need to pick up a lot of LD 2nd votes.

This is why the Tories are fearful of AV: they assume that Liberal voters will favour Labour (and Labour voters will favour Liberals in Con/Lib marginals), and so even safe Tory seats could potentially fall. Take Battersea, for instance, where the Tories polled 47.3% of the vote, Labour 35.1% and Liberal Democrat 14.7%, Green 1.1% and UKIP 1%. Even if the Tories gained all the UKIP votes and the Green votes they would still not win the constituency: it would be decided on the alternative choices of the LDs. If they overwhelmingly support the Labour candidate...

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe my experiences are a little different but welsh speakers have been very rare where I have lived, they are mostly still very proud don't get me wrong, just they tell me "the welsh are better" in english....

One of the potential problems I see with a Lib dem Conservative coalition is that a tactic to scare people off voting for the lib dems is to tell them they will be allowing the conservatives in, ill be honest its one of the main reasons i would vote labour, by making such a deal the lib dems would surely give themselves a black mark in many peoples minds....

How would AV affect the nationalist partys ?

[Idaho]

leaving the electorates most favoured party out in the cold

Actually the electorate most favour anyone other than the Tories :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

Actually the electorate most favour anyone other than the Tories :laugh4:

you are projecting the world you wish to see over the world that exists right now; in a FPTP plurality system where winner-takes-all, the tories are the most favoured party.

[Furunculus]

Maybe my experiences are a little different but welsh speakers have been very rare where I have lived, they are mostly still very proud don't get me wrong, just they tell me "the welsh are better" in english....

One of the potential problems I see with a Lib dem Conservative coalition is that a tactic to scare people off voting for the lib dems is to tell them they will be allowing the conservatives in, ill be honest its one of the main reasons i would vote labour, by making such a deal the lib dems would surely give themselves a black mark in many peoples minds....

How would AV affect the nationalist partys ?

hah, i bumped into some pissed neanderthal in the pub, who on seeing that i was wearing a new zealand t-shirt immediately told me he hated the english, so told him i wasn't from new-zealand and he asked where i was from because he couldn't place my accent, so i told him i was british, which confused him as i didn't fit into the neat pidgeon-hole he wanted that would allow him to dismiss me.

[al Roumi]

you are projecting the world you wish to see over the world that exists right now; in a FPTP plurality system where winner-takes-all, the tories are the most favoured party.

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, they are both correct, but as neither understand what the other is saying....

[Idaho]

you are projecting the world you wish to see over the world that exists right now; in a FPTP plurality system where winner-takes-all, the tories are the most favoured party.

That's precisely what you are doing, as this is the world that exists now. Your favoured electoral system has produced this result. You can't discount it just because it hasn't given your party the advantage you would like.

[Idaho]

Personally I like the deal making and compromises. That way we get the sort of policies that most people can agree on.

Majority governments are always launching 'bold new ideas' that are complete nonsense 90% of the time and are more about making a big media splash than good government.

[Furunculus]

lol, the only way to prove either view is to wait until a lib-lab coalition collapses and see how badly the electorate punishes the partners.

but don't misunderstand, i am happy with either outcome:

either a lib-lab coalition occurs, which will collapse before 2011, whereupon there will be a tory majority returned, hopefully before lib-lab have had a chance to do too much damage.

or, the libs return to the tory deal no tainted with exactly the kind of 'old' politics and back-room skullduggery that they accused the tory's of.

i am a happy man either way.

[rory_20_uk]

Personally I like the deal making and compromises. That way we get the sort of policies that most people can agree on.

Majority governments are always launching 'bold new ideas' that are complete nonsense 90% of the time and are more about making a big media splash than good government.

Sadly that is the case (PFI, massive aircraft carriers...). One would hope that long term, transiently unpopular measures could be enacted for what could loosly be called the Greater Good: infrastructure for example which benefits all but in a sufficiently nebulous way to not find private backing.
Coalitions can end up with equally oddball plans to placate the minority parties to back the same "bold new ideas".

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Looks like the Tory-times are back. More of this sort of thing for the bankers:

bankers-splash-out-pound-60000-on-bar-bill-after-jackpot-bet-on-election (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23832291-bankers-splash-out-pound-60000-on-bar-bill-after-jackpot-bet-on-election.do)

[rory_20_uk]

They earned it, they're spending it. The economy needs people to spend, preferably from money earned from foreign companies.

I like being at home with a few friends. I don't imagine I'd get any more satisfaction from the drink if the bill was £6k.

Better they blow vast sums on services here than elsewhere. They can help pay off the only thing Labour has made in abundance - debt.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Looks like the Tory-times are back. More of this sort of thing for the bankers:

bankers-splash-out-pound-60000-on-bar-bill-after-jackpot-bet-on-election (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23832291-bankers-splash-out-pound-60000-on-bar-bill-after-jackpot-bet-on-election.do)

is that saying something useful about the election, or just more tribalist working class chippiness against privilege?

those people are paying significant amounts of their hard earned cash into paying for your benefits, why be so bitter about your dependency on private wealth creation?

p.s. i already put this link in "news of the weird".

--------------------------------------------------------------

good article in defence of FPTP:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/05/lord-norton-the-case-for-first-past-the-post.html


Lord Norton: The case for First Past The Post

Fundamental to any representative democracy is the concept of accountability. Our electoral system facilitates but does not guarantee the return of a single-party government. The winning party has a coherent programme of public policy that it put before the electors and for which it can be held to account at the next election.

There is one body – the party in government – that is responsible for public policy. There is no scope for buck-passing or shirking of responsibility. Electors can judge it in terms of what it promised – the manifesto is a benchmark – and if dissatisfied can sweep it from office. Critics focus on the hiring element of the process, but – as the distinguished philosopher Sir Karl Popper noted – tend to ignore the firing part. There is, in our system, a fundamental accountability that is lacking in alternative systems.

The electoral system does not guarantee single-party government. It can on occasion result in a hung Parliament, as we are presently experiencing. However, this is the exception and not the rule. Under alternative systems, it is likely to be the rule. Current experience points to the inherent problems of the alternatives.

Alex Salmond has referred to a hung Parliament as a ‘people’s Parliament’. It is the opposite: it is a politician’s parliament. Policy is the result of post-election bargaining. The people do not get a look in. Compromises are reached which may bear no relationship to what electors want, which were never placed before them, and which they may have no opportunity to pass judgement on at the next election if parties stand as independent entities: there is no one body to call to account.

The principal argument against the present system is that it is not fair – it is not a proportional system. However, proportional representation is a narrow concept. The ‘proportionality’ relates only to the relationship of votes to seats and not to the proportionality of power. Under PR, 10% of the votes are designed to produce 10% of the seats, but not necessarily 10% of the negotiating power in the House of Commons. Indeed, a party with 10% of the seats may be in a position to wield disproportionate negotiating power.

PR systems, contrary to claims made for them, do not necessarily produce governments that have the support of a majority of electors. If party A gains 30% of the votes and party B 25%, a post-election coalition of A+B does not enjoy the support of 55% of electors. It enjoys the definitive support of no electors, as no elector has been presented with the opportunity to vote for A+B. Wales provides a good example. The National Assembly for Wales is governed by a Labour/Paid Cymru coalition. No Welsh elector in 2007 was offered the opportunity to vote for Labour + Plaid Cymru – and it is unlikely that many voted Labour on the assumption that a Labour/Plaid Cymru coalition was a likely outcome if no party achieved an overall majority.

No electoral system is perfect, but the first-past-the-post system has a number of attributes which, in combination, cannot be matched by any of the alternatives. It is worth fighting for. The first thing to do in any debate about PR is to demand that advocates stop talking about ‘PR’ as if it is a specific alternative and instead require them to specify the particular system they favour (STV, AMS, regional list, AV+). Once one starts to compare first-past-the-post to a specific alternative, one begins to recognise the benefits of retaining our current electoral system.

[Idaho]

I prefer this analysis:

Dutch View on Coalitions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8675063.stm)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Furunculus, I can't see any link to the primary source of your article on FPTP (post #1587). All posted articles should have the primary source linked otherwise there are some copyright issues. It is also good practice to quote only a short piece from the article rather than the entire thing, again for recognition of copyright.

I assume it's from the Telegraph, but nonetheless, you should edit in a link. :wink:

[Furunculus]

sorry, don't know how that one slipped past.

[gaelic cowboy]

either a lib-lab coalition occurs, which will collapse before 2011, whereupon there will be a tory majority returned, hopefully before lib-lab have had a chance to do too much damage.

or, the libs return to the tory deal no tainted with exactly the kind of 'old' politics and back-room skullduggery that they accused the tory's of.

i am a happy man either way.

If Cameron is thinking this he might need a closer examination of Irish politics rather than continental governments Fianna Fail has been in government in Ireland since 1997.

In fact they have been in power for most of the last 70yrs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_cabinets_since_1919)

During this time they have been in coalition each an every time and have had no problem making deals and getting votes through the Dail.

The secret is that politicians would have no incentive to seek a fresh mandate and so the would cling to each other in power. Once power is achieved they will try to keep it and if things did turn out better in 5yrs then they would get the praise for it.

Cameron will not gamble that big on a potential government bust up that may never happen.

[Furunculus]

I prefer this analysis:

Dutch View on Coalitions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8675063.stm)

it's lovely if you deem those features desirable. i don't.

If Cameron is thinking this he might need a closer examination of Irish politics rather than continental governments Fianna Fail has been in government in Ireland since 1997.

In fact they have been in power for most of the last 70yrs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_cabinets_since_1919)

During this time they have been in coalition each an every time and have had no problem making deals and getting votes through the Dail.

The secret is that politicians would have no incentive to seek a fresh mandate and so the would cling to each other in power. Once power is achieved they will try to keep it and if things did turn out better in 5yrs then they would get the praise for it.

Cameron will not gamble that big on a potential government bust up that may never happen.
the argument runs that any lib-lab coalition will quickly collapse, in which case the electorate would return a Con majority, in other words it is a good election to lose.

[gaelic cowboy]

You make dislike coalition but then so do the majority of politicians however that does not mean they are naturally unstable.
Lets remember that politicians are basically they kind of people that intellectually, philosophically and psychologically are suited to coalition.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lib-Lab talks over.

[al Roumi]

PR systems, contrary to claims made for them, do not necessarily produce governments that have the support of a majority of electors. If party A gains 30% of the votes and party B 25%, a post-election coalition of A+B does not enjoy the support of 55% of electors. It enjoys the definitive support of no electors, as no elector has been presented with the opportunity to vote for A+B (1).

Wales provides a good example. The National Assembly for Wales is governed by a Labour/Paid Cymru coalition. No Welsh elector in 2007 was offered the opportunity to vote for Labour + Plaid Cymru – and it is unlikely that many voted Labour on the assumption that a Labour/Plaid Cymru coalition was a likely outcome if no party achieved an overall majority (2).

Thanks, that's a good article -although i do have 2 comments:

1) While agreeing that a coalition does not command the direct support of electors in the way that a single party majority government does, the party system itself means there is some "float" or room for difference between the MP a constituency elects and the MP's party. A party is itself a composite of the views of its MPs -as well as that of unelected party members/aides. While a coalition carries the potential for even more divergence from an MPs mandate, the party system could be considered bad enough in itself.

2) Without knowing the precise conditions of the Welsh NA elections in the example, in the particular case of our recent general election where the prospect of a hung parliament was continuously discussed and debated, I think there are grounds for assuming voters were certainly aware of the likelihood of rule by a coalition government. I think there are grounds for saying that people voted with full knowledge of the prospect of coalition government.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, sucks to be JAG, looks like.

After everything, it seems clear that Labour ultimately have nothing to offer the Lib-Dems.

So, all that Clegg has done with this is damage his image. Even if he did negotiate with both sides in good faith, he has lost credability over this. He will be seen as oppertunistic, and I suspect the Lib-Dems will suffer for that at the next election.

Looks like Cleggmania was a completely busted flush.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thanks, that's a good article -although i do have 2 comments:

2) Without knowing the precise conditions of the Welsh NA elections in the example, in the particular case of our recent general election where the prospect of a hung parliament was continuously discussed and debated, I think there are grounds for assuming voters were certainly aware of the likelihood of rule by a coalition government. I think there are grounds for saying that people voted with full knowledge of the prospect of coalition government.

The problem with this view, surely though, is that electors can only vote for a single MP. You can't vote for a Hung Parliament, not as a real strategy.

[Idaho]

I think I want a Lib-Tory alliance.

It can limp along for a couple of years. The libs taking the edge off the tories, while ID cards get scrapped. And in 2 years time, when the Tories have stiffed the Libs over PR (which we all know they will), and the country has been laid low by massive government cuts and unemployment (meanwhile the city of London makes bumper profits); the Libs will bail out, we'll have another election and the Tories will be kicked out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think I want a Lib-Tory alliance.

It can limp along for a couple of years. The libs taking the edge off the tories, while ID cards get scrapped. And in 2 years time, when the Tories have stiffed the Libs over PR (which we all know they will), and the country has been laid low by massive government cuts and unemployment (meanwhile the city of London makes bumper profits); the Libs will bail out, we'll have another election and the Tories will be kicked out.

Unless the cuts reduce the defecit enough that the economy, and thence spending, pick up.

Important to point out that, whatever else, both the Tories and Liberals have a much better record on Civil Liberties than Labour. So this Alliance can only be a good thing on that account.

[al Roumi]

The problem with this view, surely though, is that electors can only vote for a single MP. You can't vote for a Hung Parliament, not as a real strategy.

I voted for Lib dem, 1 in the hope that they would form a majority govt (ha), 2 that failing that, they would pursue their manifesto to the best of their capability whatever the outcome -be that as part of a coalition, in opposition or just in parliament. I was not, and am not, averse to the idea of a coalition govt, providing a fair deal is won for the party I supported.

All this bollox about Lib's negotiations with both sides being undemocratic is in the strictest sense of the word true, but in the practical sense: exactly what you would expect and no different to what any party in their position would do.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think I want a Lib-Tory alliance.

It can limp along for a couple of years. The libs taking the edge off the tories, while ID cards get scrapped. And in 2 years time, when the Tories have stiffed the Libs over PR (which we all know they will), and the country has been laid low by massive government cuts and unemployment (meanwhile the city of London makes bumper profits); the Libs will bail out, we'll have another election and the Tories will be kicked out.

Possibly I still found it astounding that Tory MPs were demanding to allocate no cabinet seats to the Lib-Dems that kind of thinking is what busts coalitions and loses you support in an election.

[al Roumi]

Unless the cuts reduce the defecit enough that the economy, and thence spending, pick up.

I know there hasn't been much discussion at all about how and when the deficit will be "managed" or "cut", do you have any idea how savage the cuts in public spending would have to be to redress the situation in less than 5 years?

If you think Thatcher is stigmatised now, it's bound to be worse for whoever enacts these cuts -especially if that's the only way they will reduce the deficit...

[gaelic cowboy]

Well I reckon the Afghan war accounts for a lot of spending there is a saving straight away

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All this bollox about Lib's negotiations with both sides being undemocratic is in the strictest sense of the word true, but in the practical sense: exactly what you would expect and no different to what any party in their position would do.

This would be true, were it not for the fact that a Lib-Lab coalition was never going to happen. So basically, Clegg made a show of negotiating with Labour was just grubby politics. It was an attempt to try to strong-arm the Conservatives, and get a concession on electoral reform.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know there hasn't been much discussion at all about how and when the deficit will be "managed" or "cut", do you have any idea how savage the cuts in public spending would have to be to redress the situation in less than 5 years?

If you think Thatcher is stigmatised now, it's bound to be worse for whoever enacts these cuts -especially if that's the only way they will reduce the deficit...

Actually, I do have an idea, and I work in education.

Realistically, tax rises at this time will depress growth in the private sector, which currently accounts for less that 50% of GDP. Tax rises will result in a further gowth of the Public Sector, which is only a short-term solution and potentially creates mores problems in a year or two.

[Furunculus]

Possibly I still found it astounding that Tory MPs were demanding to allocate no cabinet seats to the Lib-Dems that kind of thinking is what busts coalitions and loses you support in an election.

lol, sounds like exactly the same kind of bargaining as the lib-dems attempted by courting Labour.

i agree with PVC that regardless of the necessity of the labour talks, it has made clegg look underhanded, not a good thing for a leader whose reputation depends on his 'new' politics image.

[Idaho]

both the Tories and Liberals have a much better record on Civil Liberties than Labour.

You what! Public Order Act? Police and Criminal Evidence Act? Removal of right to silence?

[gaelic cowboy]

move along nothing to see here new Tory Lib government by end of week

[al Roumi]

lol, sounds like exactly the same kind of bargaining as the lib-dems attempted by courting Labour.

i agree with PVC that regardless of the necessity of the labour talks, it has made clegg look underhanded, not a good thing for a leader whose reputation depends on his 'new' politics image.

meh. He's been an MEP for years... He's not new... And AFAIK his idea on "new politics" was a renewal and increase in cross party comisions, rather than glorying in the singlemindedness afforded by massive majorities. Speaking to all sides is very lib dem, if you ask me...

[al Roumi]

Actually, I do have an idea, and I work in education.

They let you near children!!!!? :wink:

[Furunculus]

meh. He's been an MEP for years... He's not new... And AFAIK his idea on "new politics" was a renewal and increase in cross party comisions, rather than glorying in the singlemindedness afforded by massive majorities.

Speaking to all sides is very lib dem, if you ask me...

he might be, along with his other fifteen activists and three thousand voters, the real opportunity of the surge vanished once people actually took a serious look at their policies.

is that a polite way of saying inconsistent and opportunistic?

[al Roumi]

is that a polite way of saying inconsistent and opportunistic?

LOL, collegiate was the word I had in mind :beam:

[ICantSpellDawg]

My money is on a Tory/LD coalition, proportional representation within the next 2 years and devolution into an English parliament after that. Any takers?

[Furunculus]

most it will be is a referendum on PR, no certainty that it will be accepted.

[tibilicus]

Well it looks like the election coverage may be at an end soon. In that case I think a roll call is due, for those spinsters who spun their party and tried to persuade us that there polices were best, despite how awful they may have been. And let's not forgot those politicos, who's indecisive conclusions meant that even now, we still have no idea what's going on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UudTo_1ifYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-DEcMeB3r8

[Banquo's Ghost]

Brown is at the Palace and resigning as Prime Minister. Her Majesty will be inviting David Cameron to form the next government.

[Idaho]

My money is on a Tory/LD coalition, proportional representation within the next 2 years and devolution into an English parliament after that. Any takers?

Yes to the first - the latter two? Not a chance.

[gaelic cowboy]

Did anyone see Adam Boulton lose it on sky what a eejit

[Idaho]

Just watched Brown's resignation speech. Fair play to the bloke.

[Vladimir]

Wow. I'm four pages behind. :dizzy2:

Does anyone think the Liberal Democrats are the real winners in this election? How can a party in the minority loose seats yet have so much power?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You what! Public Order Act? Police and Criminal Evidence Act? Removal of right to silence?

ID cards, removal of Doble Jeaprody, Habeus Corpus, retention of the DNA of innocents, restriction of the right to public demonstration, massive crimal databases, massive survailence of the citizenry (and yes, I know the list is replete with spelling errors).

Still, the Conservatives have a better record, if only because they aren't prone to dicking about with our Constitution.


They let you near children!!!!? :wink:

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, I work in University education.

[gaelic cowboy]

What constitution

[Furunculus]

Wow. I'm four pages behind. :dizzy2:

Does anyone think the Liberal Democrats are the real winners in this election? How can a party in the minority loose seats yet have so much power?

we won't find out 'how' much power until we see which bits of the the various manifesto's have been torn up...............




Still, the Conservatives have a better record, if only because they aren't prone to dicking about with our Constitution.


amen!

[InsaneApache]

I know there hasn't been much discussion at all about how and when the deficit will be "managed" or "cut", do you have any idea how savage the cuts in public spending would have to be to redress the situation in less than 5 years?

If you think Thatcher is stigmatised now, it's bound to be worse for whoever enacts these cuts -especially if that's the only way they will reduce the deficit...

Brillo was on about the deficit last week. Talking to various heads he said this and it actually made my eyes water. All through Thatchers reign she took measures to reduce the deficit by 2% and that the next government will have to reduce it by more than 20% year on year. :sweatdrop:

Hang onto your hats kiddies, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

New Labour. New Britain.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, there we are. An extraordinary few days.

I'm rather pleased to be impressed with Prime Minister Cameron. The coalition with the Liberals is far-sighted, and the policy compromises on both sides are genuinely intelligent. The Liberals have given most ground, as they should, but the step towards an AV referendum is sensible. I'm a little sad that the rumour circulating that Osborne was to be replaced by Ken Clarke and Vince Cable as First Secretary proved unfounded, but I still think young Osborne will be Lamonted later this year.

A real coalition government, and for the first time since the war. :shocked: I hope it proves stable, as I think it gives the best hope for the serious decisions to come.

I was particularly amused by the way Labour imploded and gave Mr Clegg every reason to abandon talks. Contrary to some views expressed above, I think his approach was well-timed, putting fear into the Tories just when he needed them to get serious about sealing the deal. Good negotiating, and he would never have been able to sell the Tory deal to his own party if he hadn't explored the "progressive" option. Then Labour gave him the perfect way out - they proved not to be serious. Boom, straight back to the Tory negotiators, who jumped with joy, and to his own party he could shrug and say it was never on with Labour. Deal done.

Far from being an opportunist, I thought he proved himself a shrewd politician. He and Cameron seem to get on (as opposed to Brown's bullying phone calls) which bodes well for a partnership.

I think the country is in good hands. Now for the pain.

[InsaneApache]

Oh dear. Polly Toynbee's upset. Good. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

Contrary to some views expressed above, I think his approach was well-timed, putting fear into the Tories just when he needed them to get serious about sealing the deal. Good negotiating, and he would never have been able to sell the Tory deal to his own party if he hadn't explored the "progressive" option. Then Labour gave him the perfect way out - they proved not to be serious. Boom, straight back to the Tory negotiators, who jumped with joy, and to his own party he could shrug and say it was never on with Labour. Deal done.

Far from being an opportunist, I thought he proved himself a shrewd politician. He and Cameron seem to get on (as opposed to Brown's bullying phone calls) which bodes well for a partnership.

i agreed above that clegg probably had no option but to explore a progressive coalition before his rabid membership would accept a lib-con deal, and its not clegg acted improperly in doing so, but the cloak-and-dagger discussions with labour will give lie to the claim that clegg is all new politics, believe me, he is now firmly cemented in the political establishment in the eyes of the people.


Oh dear. Polly Toynbee's upset. Good. :laugh4:
few things can bring such instant and unvarnished joy to me, even in the absence of the details that cause this to be true, my thanks.

[Subotan]

Oh dear. Polly Toynbee's upset. Good. :laugh4:


few things can bring such instant and unvarnished joy to me, even in the absence of the details that cause this to be true, my thanks.

And yet I was criticised for saying the same thing about Furunuculus' attitude to the Lib Dems. :stare:

[Idaho]

ID cards, removal of Doble Jeaprody, Habeus Corpus, retention of the DNA of innocents, restriction of the right to public demonstration, massive crimal databases, massive survailence of the citizenry (and yes, I know the list is replete with spelling errors).

Labour have become as bad as the Tories, I agree. But that's only because they have tried so hard to adopt Tory policy in this regard.

ID cards were originally a Tory wheeze. Restriction of public demonstration was entirely a Tory creation (Public Order Act). Video surveillance society was an extension of a Tory policy.

Once again, let me be clear, I hate both of them. But my loathing for the Tories is something primal. They actually disgust me.

[Furunculus]

And yet I was criticised for saying the same thing about Furunuculus' attitude to the Lib Dems. :stare:
que?


Once again, let me be clear, I hate both of them. But my loathing for the Tories is something primal. They actually disgust me.
that is unhealthy, you need to sort that out. even i don't hate labour, i just have a mild and patronizing contempt for their philosophy.

[rory_20_uk]

I agree with Furunculus on this one. Parties change over time and should be judged on what they do primarily, not on what they say or heaven forbid what they said or did decades ago.

A primal loathing / hatred for a party is to me very odd, especially as has been pointed out, most fo the "loony Right" ideas have been implemented by a "Left" wing party (well, no one called Labour "liberal", did they). But then Tories have always been about local power and freedoms, whereas Labour is a Centralising Stalinist mindset verging on belief - when it doesn't work, legislate some more layers to help sort out the other twelve...

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Labour have become as bad as the Tories, I agree. But that's only because they have tried so hard to adopt Tory policy in this regard.

ID cards were originally a Tory wheeze. Restriction of public demonstration was entirely a Tory creation (Public Order Act). Video surveillance society was an extension of a Tory policy.

Once again, let me be clear, I hate both of them. But my loathing for the Tories is something primal. They actually disgust me.

That's just silly.

The Tories were in charge for most of the Troubles, including the most brutal times, but they never tried to remove historic rights, create thousands of new offences, or lock people up without a trial.

[Idaho]

That's just silly.

The Tories were in charge for most of the Troubles, including the most brutal times, but they never tried to remove historic rights, create thousands of new offences, or lock people up without a trial.

The erosion of civil liberties and the gradual march of the centralised police state has been unchecked by either party, and indeed hastened by both.

The Tories introduced the Public Order Act of 1986 which severly curtailed the right to demonstrate. Making it obligatory to notify and get approval from the police for both the timing, size and route of any march or protest. It also criminalised gypsies and travellers and broke up previously permitted convoys/gatherings of those people - mainly because the Tories didn't like them - being all scruffy and that.

And then later the Criminal Justic and Public Order Act of 1994 which allowed the police to break up a gathering of more than 20 people in the open, as well as curtailing the right to silence. It also criminalised a number or previously civil infractions - tresspass, protest, etc. It also gave police powers to stop gatherings where there was music consisting of 'repetitive beats' in a panicky reaction to tabloid headlines regarding raves and dance music. The act was used last year in this city to close down a family barbeque!

Family BBQ shut down by police (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/8155441.stm)

[al Roumi]

... whereas Labour is a Centralising Stalinist mindset verging on belief - when it doesn't work, legislate some more layers to help sort out the other twelve...

Yeah, we'll now find out about the state engineered famine and correctional work camps will we?

I think you might be right to call Labour Statist, in that they believe the state should have a larger and broader presence. Otherwise one might as well follow your example and lable the Tories Fascist and/or Nazi.

[Idaho]

I agree with Furunculus on this one. Parties change over time and should be judged on what they do primarily, not on what they say or heaven forbid what they said or did decades ago.

A primal loathing / hatred for a party is to me very odd, especially as has been pointed out, most fo the "loony Right" ideas have been implemented by a "Left" wing party (well, no one called Labour "liberal", did they). But then Tories have always been about local power and freedoms, whereas Labour is a Centralising Stalinist mindset verging on belief - when it doesn't work, legislate some more layers to help sort out the other twelve...

~:smoking:

This post contains the biggest contradiction I have ever witnessed on this board. The Conservative party had as their mantra throughout the 80's that they would roll back the frontiers of the state. And yet Thatcher presided over an era which saw massive, yes massive increases in state spending, size, scope and power. Reagan in the US did the same bit of duplicity.

Local powers and freedoms? What on earth are you talking about? Thatcher abolished various Labour held local councils including the GLC entirely for political reasons.

[Furunculus]

mervyn king agrees that the deficit needs to be chopped now, so we can have an end to stupid labour statements about taking money out of the economy, the state does not create wealth:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100005592/king-says-tories-were-right-all-along-about-the-deficit/

[Idaho]

mervyn king agrees that the deficit needs to be chopped now, so we can have an end to stupid labour statements about taking money out of the economy, the state does not create wealth:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100005592/king-says-tories-were-right-all-along-about-the-deficit/

It does if you work in the public sector. Or do the families of teachers, police, nurses and soldiers live on thin air?

[rory_20_uk]

Increases in state spending that have been dwarfed by Labour. Thatcher managed to stop the increase in the Civil Service. Since then it's ballooned. Did she manage to do enough? No. But if she took one step in one direction, Labour have been sprinting in the other.

Breaking up Labour fiefdoms - especially the GLC was hardly taking the power from the populace. Red Ken returned to be London mayor and was known for his Monarchical style.

Nazis were just as big on a massive state as Stalin was. Merely as Nazis were extreme right and Stalin extreme left doesn't mean they don't share many traits.


~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Nazis were just as big on a massive state as Stalin was. Merely as Nazis were extreme right and Stalin extreme left doesn't mean they don't share many traits.
~:smoking:
Godwin

[rory_20_uk]

Yeah, we'll now find out about the state engineered famine and correctional work camps will we?

I think you might be right to call Labour Statist, in that they believe the state should have a larger and broader presence. Otherwise one might as well follow your example and lable the Tories Fascist and/or Nazi.

Idaho, I was replying to the above. Odd you chose to highlight me though...

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

It does if you work in the public sector. Or do the families of teachers, police, nurses and soldiers live on thin air?

hold on a minute, i forgot for a second that our problems are an economy stalled by excessive public spending and a financial market precariously unable to finance its own massive deficit.

if the public sector is too large then it must get chopped. you cannot magic money into existence to pay for more doctors and teachers than you can afford, much as labour has tried.

as usual labour bequeaths a train-wreck of an economy to their successors, and as usual the tory's will get the opprobrium of having to fix it. business as usual.

seeing as brown just left office it seems relevant to recall his words on entering the treasury in 1997 on being informed by a civil servant that the tory's had left him an economy in sterling condition; "what do you want me to do, send them a F$&%&$& thank you note?"

if only Osbourne could be so glib!

[al Roumi]

Idaho, I was replying to the above. Odd you chose to highlight me though...

True, I pulled the Godwin, but it was in response to you bandying "Stalinist" around with the same level of consideration as the usual lesser-spotted Godwin, often seen grazing in these forums.

[Idaho]

hold on a minute, i forgot for a second that our problems are an economy stalled by excessive public spending and a financial market precariously unable to finance its own massive deficit.

if the public sector is too large then it must get chopped. you cannot magic money into existence to pay for more doctors and teachers than you can afford, much as labour has tried.

But a large chunk of the money for teachers and doctors comes back as tax, and is less money to be paid in benefits. And those employed people then spend that wealth.

Compare that to the owners of big businesses who are non-dom so pay no tax.

[Furunculus]

hmmm, ten thousand non-doms running ten thousand successful companies that create tens of billions in tax revenue, vs hundreds of thousands of unaffordable public sector jobs who consume (and recycle a small proportion of) the tax revenue from the private sector.

easy choice, we live beyond our means, cut public spending.

the fixation on 'privilege' is beside the point, and utterly ignores reality.

[naut]

hmmm, ten thousand non-doms running ten thousand successful companies that create tens of billions in tax revenue, vs hundreds of thousands of unaffordable public sector jobs who consume (and recycle a small proportion of) the tax revenue from the private sector.

easy choice, we live beyond our means, cut public spending.

the fixation on 'privilege' is beside the point, and utterly ignores reality.
How about as Non-Doms pay no tax they renounce rights to anything tax pays for, it is only fair. :wacko:

[Furunculus]

how about we reduce punitive top-level taxes that encourage top-earners in the private sector from becoming non-doms.

FACT: the top one percent of earners generated a greater tax income for the exchequer when the top-rate of taxation was abolished under thatcher.

[rory_20_uk]

But a large chunk of the money for teachers and doctors comes back as tax, and is less money to be paid in benefits. And those employed people then spend that wealth.

Compare that to the owners of big businesses who are non-dom so pay no tax.


There are jobs that doctors can do outside of the Public Sector! Teachers too! :idea:

You act like these are Endangered Species who need to be protected by handouts of money. No - they are trained professionals and can work elsewhere. For example, I now do the majority of my work for the Pharmaceutical Industry, and my wife works in a Private hospital. Our taxes still go to the government and little / no money comes from it.

I have friends who a Doctors who are Investment bankers, Hedge Fund Managers, Private Equity Anlysts and now many colleagues working in similar ways to what I do.

allah_p, I take your point. Statist would have been a more accurate and less emotive term to use :bow:

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

I have friends who a Doctors who are Investment bankers, Hedge Fund Managers, Private Equity Anlysts

Yeah - they really do add wealth to.. er.. themselves :laugh4:

[Idaho]

as usual labour bequeaths a train-wreck of an economy to their successors, and as usual the tory's will get the opprobrium of having to fix it. business as usual

Except for the post-war Labour government. They turned the country round from being utterly bankrupt, to fuelling the 1950's boom in just 6 years.

[rory_20_uk]

Yeah - they really do add wealth to.. er.. themselves :laugh4:

So, Civil servants are fine and great - even when being paid over £100k (head of the BBC rakes in closer to £800k). Because let's not forget all the taxes they pay (and forget about the unfunded pensions...)

Leave for Industry / consulting / banking: Eeeeevil b*stards, only enriching themselves... Paying the same taxes, and often earning less than senior Civil servants...

Do you read before posting?

Managing to get a boom after a war is shooting fish in a barrel. Germany managed that, after being bombed flat, millions of refugees and partitioned!

~:smoking:

[Gregoshi]

I haven't been following this election. So, do you or do you not have a new King/Queen? :7queen:


:laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

Do you leave Afghanistan? If so, when?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I haven't been following this election. So, do you or do you not have a new King/Queen? :7queen:No, no new queen yet.

These people never have to work a day in their life, they don't know stress, nor want, nor sweat. So they all live to well within their nineties.

[Furunculus]

No, no new queen yet.

These people never have to work a day in their life, they don't know stress, nor want, nor sweat. So they all live to well within their nineties.

lol, the queen and phil work harder, every single day, for more days of the year, than you or I ever will.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

True, I pulled the Godwin, but it was in response to you bandying "Stalinist" around with the same level of consideration as the usual lesser-spotted Godwin, often seen grazing in these forums.

To be fair, I think the "Stalinist" comment was more to do with the Labour method of centralised numbers-led organisation. I'm afraid that form of planning is correct;ly labelised "Stalinist" in a technical sense, irrc, Labour even goes so far as to have, "five year plans".

I don't think Rory actually intended to go as far as to suggest that Labour is the Politburo of Communist Russia.


Except for the post-war Labour government. They turned the country round from being utterly bankrupt, to fuelling the 1950's boom in just 6 years.

And what did they use for that? massive loans from America, that we only paid off a few years ago.

[Furunculus]

the full text of the coalition agreement:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7715166/In-full-the-Conservative-Liberal-Democrat-coalition-agreement.html

[therother]

Do you leave Afghanistan? If so, when?

Good question. Both parties supported intervention in Afghanistan and the new PM previously said that he won't "cut and run". Clegg had strategy concerns but appears to back the mission if it's done "right". So the troops are probably there to stay for a while longer.

[Furunculus]

How does the new coalition EU policy stack up against cameron's six pledges:

Good
We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

6) Repatriation of control over social and employment legislation
We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.

1) The referendum lock
3) A guaranteed say for MP’s if Ministers want the EU to extend its powers
We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.

2) A United Kingdom sovereignty bill
We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

Good
We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

Nice waffle
We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

Who cares, feel good stuff
We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels.

5) Return of powers over criminal justice
We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.
-----------------------------------------------------
4) Opt out from the charter of fundamental rights
Only one casualty that i can see.

conclusion
I'm reasonably happy

[al Roumi]

No, no new queen yet.

These people never have to work a day in their life, they don't know stress, nor want, nor sweat. So they all live to well within their nineties.


lol, the queen and phil work harder, every single day, for more days of the year, than you or I ever will.

Especially as we spend the days typing away on t'internet...

[Furunculus]

Especially as we spend the days typing away on t'internet...

quite. :p

[KukriKhan]

Good question. Both parties supported intervention in Afghanistan and the new PM previously said that he won't "cut and run". Clegg had strategy concerns but appears to back the mission if it's done "right". So the troops are probably there to stay for a while longer.

That's good news. That'll give my guys breathing room to find some other-than-humiliating way out of there.

On behalf of the US public: thanks for your continued support, above and beyond The Call. The rest of you guys (nations) too. :bow:

[al Roumi]

That's good news. That'll give my guys breathing room to find some other-than-humiliating way out of there.

On behalf of the US public: thanks for your continued support, above and beyond The Call. The rest of you guys (nations) too. :bow:

That's very kind, lets hope y'all don't drag us off anywhere else...

[KukriKhan]

That's very kind, lets hope y'all don't drag us off anywhere else...

From your lips (or... typewriting fingertips) to God's ear.

[Furunculus]

anyone know who got europe minister?

[Subotan]

I'm crossing my fingers it's a Lib-Dem.

[tibilicus]

Things which annoyed me today:

Lib Dems complaining that they have seats in government. Most people would be ecstatic. As for the argument that they should of formed a "rainbow alliance" (lol, Alex Salmond) it wasn't really plausible and plus this way, shouldn't the lib dems see it as a chance to dilute some of the more right-wing Conservative policies? I may never understand how certain liberals and left thinkers can allow tribalistic political views and their hate for the "nasty party" to obscure the fact that the lib dems have got a strong deal and their leadership knows it. I'm not saying it's just a symptom of progressives, but any lib Dem which turns in their membership over such a deal is a hypocrite. It means they don't really want consensus government, just consensus government where the centre-right parties are excluded.

[Idaho]

anyone know who got europe minister?

My guess would be that they would give that to a moderately pro-EU Tory.

[Idaho]

I don't get this bit:


Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

Either the parliaments are fixed term or they aren't. A majority party could just get the whip behind a government led motion to dissolve the house and have an election :confused:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't get this bit:



Either the parliaments are fixed term or they aren't. A majority party could just get the whip behind a government led motion to dissolve the house and have an election :confused:It would make sense with a coalition (sytem).


Imagine, for example, the current parliament but LibDem having 100 seats. Con + LibDem and Lab + LibDem would each have over 55%.

[Furunculus]

anyone know who got europe minister?

is it not announced yet?

[Vladimir]

That's very kind, lets hope y'all don't drag us off anywhere else...

Maybe we could return the favor. I've always wanted to visit South America.

[Beskar]

is it not announced yet?

There is a full list here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8675705.stm

No European Minister on it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Things which annoyed me today:

Lib Dems complaining that they have seats in government. Most people would be ecstatic. As for the argument that they should of formed a "rainbow alliance" (lol, Alex Salmond) it wasn't really plausible and plus this way, shouldn't the lib dems see it as a chance to dilute some of the more right-wing Conservative policies? I may never understand how certain liberals and left thinkers can allow tribalistic political views and their hate for the "nasty party" to obscure the fact that the lib dems have got a strong deal and their leadership knows it. I'm not saying it's just a symptom of progressives, but any lib Dem which turns in their membership over such a deal is a hypocrite. It means they don't really want consensus government, just consensus government where the centre-right parties are excluded.

Quite, reading over the financial part of the agreement, it looks like a plan to cut hard whilst protecting the most vulnerable. Generally speaking, both parties have taken the best and most sensible parts of their manifesto's and merged them, rather than just bolting bits together.

The Liberals have got a good deal, so have the Conservatives, and (I hope) has the country.

At least thus far things look very promising.

[Furunculus]

There is a full list here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8675705.stm

No European Minister on it.

hmmm, not announced yet, suspicious, i sense a lib-dem in the force.................

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

hmmm, not announced yet, suspicious, i sense a lib-dem in the force.................

Or just no minister, Cameron said he was going to significantly reduce the size of the cabinet. Europe is a good candidate to be axed, because it will be devisive either way.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting coalition.


If everything works well, you'll end up with a more conservative slate of economic policies and a sober foreign policy with an emphasis on the UK and not the EU, but all of this will be tempered by an integrated "conscience" that pushes for individual liberties and restrains economic reform etc. that is too sweeping in its effect.

If everything doesn't work out, you'll end up with a wishy-washy essay in paralysis that does everything it can to perpetuate itself with only tangential regard for the UK voter.

I hope you folks end up with the former.

[gaelic cowboy]

Owen Paterson got the North ha ha ha poor fella he must have annoyed someone

[Furunculus]

Or just no minister, Cameron said he was going to significantly reduce the size of the cabinet. Europe is a good candidate to be axed, because it will be devisive either way.

that would be an awesome result, really hadn't seriously considered that, put europe back where it belongs; under the aegis of the FCO.

Interesting coalition.


If everything works well, you'll end up with a more conservative slate of economic policies and a sober foreign policy with an emphasis on the UK and not the EU, but all of this will be tempered by an integrated "conscience" that pushes for individual liberties and restrains economic reform etc. that is too sweeping in its effect.

If everything doesn't work out, you'll end up with a wishy-washy essay in paralysis that does everything it can to perpetuate itself with only tangential regard for the UK voter.

I hope you folks end up with the former.

it could be quite cool, and given that the Guv'nor reckons the coming cuts will be so nasty as to keep the instigating party out of power for a generation, why not share that pain with the 'nice' party and show them what realpolitik is all about.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting coalition.


If everything works well, you'll end up with a more conservative slate of economic policies and a sober foreign policy with an emphasis on the UK and not the EU, but all of this will be tempered by an integrated "conscience" that pushes for individual liberties and restrains economic reform etc. that is too sweeping in its effect.

If everything doesn't work out, you'll end up with a wishy-washy essay in paralysis that does everything it can to perpetuate itself with only tangential regard for the UK voter.

I hope you folks end up with the former.

More than that... if this comes off New Labour will look like the darkest and most incompetant government of the 20th Century, in Brtiatian at least.

[Beskar]

More than that... if this comes off New Labour will look like the darkest and most incompetant government of the 20th Century, in Brtiatian at least.

Good news for them, New Labour was only the worse. They should have experienced Thatcher.

[Furunculus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/7717027/Coalition-government-angers-Right-wing-Conservatives.html


Eurosceptics said the post of Europe Minister will be a key test of the balance of power between the two parties. An announcement is expected today .

i will not be a happy bunny if a lib-dem gets the position, and i am suspicious that the announcement for post has been delayed, it does not auger well!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Good news for them, New Labour was only the worse. They should have experienced Thatcher.

Thatcher was a result of the Winter of Discontent and rampant Unionism. she was also the most un-Conservative Prime Minister ever.

So stop it.

[Idaho]

Thatcher was a result of the Winter of Discontent and rampant Unionism. she was also the most un-Conservative Prime Minister ever.

So stop it.

Thatcher was the expression of a small clique of financial interests in the City. She remade the country in their image.

Her husband was nobody in particular when she took office, and one of the country's richest men when she left.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thatcher was the expression of a small clique of financial interests in the City. She remade the country in their image.

Her husband was nobody in particular when she took office, and one of the country's richest men when she left.

She was also a Grocer's daughter, and one of the first female MP's.

She believed in getting on by your own graft, not on handouts - because that's how she got ahead and become the most powerful woman in the country.

[rory_20_uk]

And let's not forget: a salary, unless from a Public funded job is Evil.
Being rich is Evil - unless gained from payment for holding public office
The City is Evil - although we rely on it for 20% of current Government spending.

When Labour get in it is due to the Proletariat showing their true voice.
When the Conservatives get in it is through a mixture of Big Business, Financial Interests and Devil worship that clearly rigged the vote.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

When Labour get in it is due to the Proletariat showing their true voice.
When the Conservatives get in it is through a mixture of Big Business, Financial Interests and Devil worship that clearly rigged the vote.

While that may seem amusing hyperbole, when you have a look at the disparity in party funding (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/uk-general-election-donations-and-borrowings)and media patronage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/04/general-election-newspaper-support#data)during the recent election, things could well start to look unfair or undemocratic if you believe justice and equality are based on a level playing field...

[rory_20_uk]

Level playing field? How is that defined? Candidates are different, campaigns are run differently at both local and national level. To be truly level they'd all have the same policies!
I think that the current boundaries favour to a far greater extent.
I also think that vast sums of money aren't going to radically alter outcomes. Clegg is a case in point - vast media attention (for once) but this did not lead to a jump in votes cast. The Conservatives did not manage to win seats they threw money at - I do not think that there is a decent correlation between money spent and votes gained.

~:smoking:

[tibilicus]

@Thatcher

I don't agree with all of Thatchers actions but quite frankly who else did we have in the 80s? The Liberal/SDP Alliance were unelectable and Labour was plagued with infighting and put forward ridiculous policies. I mean nuclear disarmament in the middle of the Cold War? A further commitment to nationalisation despite the fact it had run our economy into the ground? No thanks.

Who else would take on the Unions who insisted on illegal strikes? Remembering the fact Union hierarchy encouraged its own members to attack those who wanted to work and their families to. Who wanted to modernise the economy and bring us in line with the other Western European economies? Who transformed the country and made it so that everyone, irrespective of class or income could own their own property? Most importantly perhaps, who allowed us to sort out our dire finance situation and actually build up strong money reserves. Don't forget that the deregulation of the London stock exchange effectively re-established London as a world financial centre, at a time when it could of quite easily fallen behind.

She may of been decisive but she was our only choice. Labour had proven in the 70s it couldn't control the economy or the Unions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@Thatcher

I don't agree with all of Thatchers actions but quite frankly who else did we have in the 80s? The Liberal/SDP Alliance were unelectable and Labour was plagued with infighting and put forward ridiculous policies. I mean nuclear disarmament in the middle of the Cold War? A further commitment to nationalisation despite the fact it had run our economy into the ground? No thanks.

Who else would take on the Unions who insisted on illegal strikes? Remembering the fact Union hierarchy encouraged its own members to attack those who wanted to work and their families to. Who wanted to modernise the economy and bring us in line with the other Western European economies? Who transformed the country and made it so that everyone, irrespective of class or income could own their own property? Most importantly perhaps, who allowed us to sort out our dire finance situation and actually build up strong money reserves. Don't forget that the deregulation of the London stock exchange effectively re-established London as a world financial centre, at a time when it could of quite easily fallen behind.

She may of been decisive but she was our only choice. Labour had proven in the 70s it couldn't control the economy or the Unions.

This would, broadly speaking, be my assessment, but I would actually be less generous to Thatcher.

[tibilicus]

This would, broadly speaking, be my assessment, but I would actually be less generous to Thatcher.

A fair point. Her economic outlook did change significantly from 1975 when she first took over leading the opposition up until the mid 80s when she was firmly committed to Monetarist economics. I guess Keith Joseph can be seen as the real mastermind in that respect.

[Idaho]

She was also a Grocer's daughter, and one of the first female MP's.

She believed in getting on by your own graft, not on handouts - because that's how she got ahead and become the most powerful woman in the country.

The humble roots thing is always a bit overdone with regard to Thatcher. She was the daughter of a local businessman, lay preacher and mayor. They were comfortably off.

[Idaho]

A fair point. Her economic outlook did change significantly from 1975 when she first took over leading the opposition up until the mid 80s when she was firmly committed to Monetarist economics. I guess Keith Joseph can be seen as the real mastermind in that respect.

Monetarist policy was first implemented by the 1976 Labour government. Forced on them by the IMF.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thatcher was the expression of a small clique of financial interests in the City. She remade the country in their image.

Her husband was nobody in particular when she took office, and one of the country's richest men when she left.I always thought that her husband paid for Maggie's career. He was a major industrialist.

Nothing humble about Margareth indeed. She managed to marry very well. Then repaid it all by offering all the perks and connections of her PM-ship to hubby. The Thatcher's are now hereditary nobility, among the very rich.


More akin to Imelda Marcos and other assorted third world business-politics couples than to the hardworking middle class Britons who mistake the Thatchers for ones of their own.

[InsaneApache]

:laugh4: You're a wag Louis and no mistake. :laugh4:

[Subotan]

Who else would take on the Unions who insisted on illegal strikes? Who wanted to modernise the economy and bring us in line with the other Western European economies? Who transformed the country and made it so that everyone, irrespective of class or income could own their own property? Most importantly perhaps, who allowed us to sort out our dire finance situation and actually build up strong reserves of money?
Duh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZI_aEalijE&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZI_aEalijE&feature=related


I always thought that her husband paid for Maggie's career. He was a major industrialist.

Nothing humble about Margareth indeed. She managed to marry very well. Then repaid it all by offering all the perks and connections of her PM-ship to hubby. The Thatcher's are now hereditary nobility, among the very rich.

More akin to Imelda Marcos and other assorted third world business-politics couples than to the hardworking middle class Britons who mistake the Thatchers for ones of their own.
Unlike Grocer Heath of course.

[tibilicus]

Duh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZI_aEalijE&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZI_aEalijE&feature=related


Unlike Grocer Heath of course.

Put my foot in it with the over use of rhetoric.
:shame:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Monetarist policy was first implemented by the 1976 Labour government. Forced on them by the IMF.

And why was that?

[Myrddraal]

I've been away for too long to comment on everything, but who would have thought it? Did anyone actually predict a lib-con formal coalition? Not that I'm disappointed with the outcome, I for one welcome our new coalition overlords.

[Furunculus]

this was the final vote register at 2:00pm on the day of the election:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2440038&viewfull=1#post2440038

Furunculus (06/05/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2483692&viewfull=1#post2483692

Furunculus (29/04/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341
Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2459341&viewfull=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471029&viewfull=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2471056&viewfull=1#post2471056

CountArch (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480544&viewfull=1#post2480544

CountArch (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476911&viewfull=1#post2476911

Banquo's Ghost (29/04/10) - Conservative led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480078&viewfull=1#post2480078

Banquo's Ghost (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476913&viewfull=1#post2476913

Louis (06/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2483786&viewfull=1#post2483786

Louis (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480070&viewfull=1#post2480070
Louis (23/04/10) - Labour led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476925&viewfull=1#post2476925

Tbilicus (05/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2482362&viewfull=1#post2482362

Tbilicus (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476926&viewfull=1#post2476926

Insane Apache (02/05/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2481378&viewfull=1#post2481378

Insane Apache (23/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2476935&viewfull=1#post2476935

Beskar (23/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2477082&viewfull=1#post2477082

Alh_P (29/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480111&viewfull=1#post2480111

Seamus Fermanagh (30/04/10) - Conservative led hung parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480262&viewfull=1#post2480262

Subotan (30/04/10) - Conservative led minority government:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125154-The-United-Kingdom-Elections-2010&p=2480536&viewfull=1#post2480536

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furunculus = Cons 325 / Lab 200 / Lib 90
Louis = Cons 285 / Lab 255 / Lib 85

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Myrddraal]

What I find surprising is not the way the votes fell, but the way the discussions went. I was expecting some kind of deals to be struck between the lib dems and the conservatives to gain them support for some of their policies, but I wouldn't have credited a formal coalition, with so many lib dems in the cabinet. I didn't think the either party would be willing.

[Furunculus]

What I find surprising is not the way the votes fell, but the way the discussions went. I was expecting some kind of deals to be struck between the lib dems and the conservatives to gain them support for some of their policies, but I wouldn't have credited a formal coalition, with so many lib dems in the cabinet. I didn't think the either party would be willing.

The reason is simple, Cameron wants to be elected again in 2015, and he is mindful of Mervyn Kings gloomy pronouncement on the fate of the party that makes the necessary cuts to public spending.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is true, but the most interesting thing is that both Tory's and Lib Dems are, through gritted teeth, taking back most of what they have said about each other. Perhaps this Coalition will teach both Left and Right to stop claiming the other is a rabid dog.

[gaelic cowboy]

What I find surprising is not the way the votes fell, but the way the discussions went. I was expecting some kind of deals to be struck between the lib dems and the conservatives to gain them support for some of their policies, but I wouldn't have credited a formal coalition, with so many lib dems in the cabinet. I didn't think the either party would be willing.

Clearly the British public at large and yourself understand nothing about how a coalition government works in practice then.

Why support a party who need your votes to implement policy if you get no benefit in the form of cabinet seat to influence policy.

[Furunculus]

Clearly the British public at large and yourself understand nothing about how a coalition government works in practice then.

Why support a party who need your votes to implement policy if you get no benefit in the form of cabinet seat to influence policy.

the option of a supply-and-confidence arrangement was an equally likely outcome.

[gaelic cowboy]

the option of a supply-and-confidence arrangement was an equally likely outcome.

But would never work in practice the Libs have to be made to share in the cutting and reforming in order to run the full term as you said yourself.

[Louis VI the Fat]

[uel=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/may/18/george-osborne-tories-constructive-eu]Business as usual[/url] from London: lots of tough Eurosceptic talk to appease their excitable electorate, otherwise in private as tame as a squirrel going to Brussels to fetch its nuts, then try to hide them from the public eye at home.

British politicians, Labour and, it appears, still Tory alike, know quite well the EU is good for Britain.



Sorry, better luck next time, Murdoch. Good luck with your trying to get a monopoly on the European press too, which Brussels regulation thus far prevents. ~:wave:

[Myrddraal]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disappointed with the outcome, not am I entirely naive about the mechanics of coalition governments (:inquisitive: thank you very much gaelic cowboy). I am simply surprised that the conservative party were willing to concede so many cabinet positions (or any at all to be honest). Both parties have surprised me with their willingness to cooperate.

In hindsight, it's the logical next step, but hindsight is 20-20.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[uel=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/may/18/george-osborne-tories-constructive-eu]Business as usual[/url] from London: lots of tough Eurosceptic talk to appease their excitable electorate, otherwise in private as tame as a squirrel going to Brussels to fetch its nuts, then try to hide them from the public eye at home.

British politicians, Labour and, it appears, still Tory alike, know quite well the EU is good for Britain.



Sorry, better luck next time, Murdoch. Good luck with your trying to get a monopoly on the European press too, which Brussels regulation thus far prevents. ~:wave:

"eurosceptic" means exactly that, sceptical of the European project; not Jingoistic hatred of the Continent.

[Furunculus]

[uel=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/may/18/george-osborne-tories-constructive-eu]Business as usual[/url] from London: lots of tough Eurosceptic talk to appease their excitable electorate, otherwise in private as tame as a squirrel going to Brussels to fetch its nuts, then try to hide them from the public eye at home.

British politicians, Labour and, it appears, still Tory alike, know quite well the EU is good for Britain.



Sorry, better luck next time, Murdoch. Good luck with your trying to get a monopoly on the European press too, which Brussels regulation thus far prevents. ~:wave:

or to read this in a less twisted way; labour pretended to be euroskepic which necessiated various stupid public contortions to appear to do one thing whilst actually doing the opposite, whereas the Conservatives are in fact eurosceptic so they get to demonstrate frank and honest opinions to both europe and the electorate. further, your fetish for Murdoch is utterly beside the point, i don't read his papers, and the UK euro-scepticism is not because of murdoch either.

that sounds somewhat closer to the truth than your bizarre ramblings.

you'd never guess your statement and the linked article were talking about the same event, so here's the link again for those who didn't read it the first time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/may/18/george-osborne-tories-constructive-eu

[Furunculus]

tories win one more seat:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7776060/Tories-win-final-general-election-seat-in-Thirsk-and-Malton.html

[Vladimir]

Can someone from the UK confirm this (http://www.theonion.com/articles/tony-blair-apparently-not-british-prime-minister-a,17493/) please.

What happened?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can someone from the UK confirm this (http://www.theonion.com/articles/tony-blair-apparently-not-british-prime-minister-a,17493/) please.

What happened?

hmmm.

[Beskar]

Can someone from the UK confirm this (http://www.theonion.com/articles/tony-blair-apparently-not-british-prime-minister-a,17493/) please.

What happened?

It is a Onion parody, trying to say Cameron is the new heir to Blair.

[Vladimir]

It is a Onion parody, trying to say Cameron is the new heir to Blair.

I thought is was a parody of us (U.S.). I doubt even half of the population knows who (the greatest PM ever :unitedkingdom: ) Gordon Brown is.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ambassadorial crime sprees: foreign embassy staff exempted from charges

Officials and dependents in UK have got off scot-free from 78 charges due to diplomatic immunity


They have been caught shoplifting and drink-driving, been accused of robbery and human trafficking, and two notable "offenders" each owe £3m in congestion charge fines. But instead of facing the full weight of the law (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law) this privileged group have got off scot-free.

Foreign embassy staff been exempted from a range of serious charges that in normal cases would have carried a penalty of at least 12 months in prison, according to figures released in parliament today.
Five diplomats have escaped shoplifting charges since 2005, including an official from the Gambian embassy caught last year, a staffer at the Cameroonian embassy in 2008, and one member of each of the Egyptian, Equatorial Guinean and Zambian embassies accused in 2005.

But perhaps the single biggest offender – albeit on less serious allegations – is the US, which has run up £3,821,880 in unpaid fines incurred in a seven-year diplomatic stand-off over the congestion charge.
There are 25,000 embassy staff and their dependents in the UK covered by diplomatic immunity: over the past five years there were 78 exemptions from serious charges.

One member from each of the Brazilian, German, US and Russian embassies were caught drink-driving but released without charge this year.
Diplomats or their dependents from Saudi Arabia and one from Sierra Leone were alleged to have been involved in human trafficking, and one from Saudi Arabia was accused of sexual assault.
A member of the Pakistan embassy was accused of threatening to kill, and one from Cameroon accused of neglect of a young person.

Embassy staff in London from more than 57 countries have clocked up £534,060 in unpaid parking tickets and minor traffic offences in 2009.
Between 2005 and 2009 police made eight requests to the government for immunity to be waived, all of which were declined, a foreign office spokesman said. In four cases the embassy involved subsequently informed the Foreign Office that the accused individual had been withdrawn.

The US embassy has dug in its heels over the congestion charge, claiming it is a tax and therefore that its diplomats are immune. Russia also owes Transport for London £3,204,990.
Just thought this was funny (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/28/ambassadorial-crime-sprees-foreign-embassy-staff-exempt-charges). (Clickable)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ambassadorial crime sprees: foreign embassy staff exempted from charges

Officials and dependents in UK have got off scot-free from 78 charges due to diplomatic immunity

Just thought this was funny (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/28/ambassadorial-crime-sprees-foreign-embassy-staff-exempt-charges). (Clickable)

Ancient news, sorry.

It would have been funnier if you could find UK diplomat's abuses. This just makes everyone else look bad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

3 million quid? A few more decades of this and we'll be talking REAL money.....

[Myrddraal]

Hmm. Perhaps we should introduce incredibly punitive fines for those who don't pay congestion charges within three years. Let those build up for a while, then present the bill to the US. We'll have the deficit paid out of the US treasury in no time!

[InsaneApache]

Except for the little fact that it's illegal to tax foreign missions. Those pesky things laws eh?

[rory_20_uk]

And there's the rub. We say they're not taxes, and therefore should be paid. They think differently.

~:smoking: