The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Banquo's Ghost]

1. Regarding a "hung" Parliament (as an American of Irish descent, it's hard for me to think of Englishmen using that adjective, but whatever....):

The concept of a hung Parliament is the same as a hung jury - ie a group unable to reach a decision, liable to be dismissed by the judge in favour of a new trial. It reflects that British tradition for preferring strong majority governments rather than coalitions. It is also rather accurate as to the likely outcome of the election - another election in a few months' time.

Setting aside tradition, is there any possibility that Brown could now lead a coalition government comprised of pretty much everybody except the Tories in order to keep the Tories out of power? Clegg's statement certainly doesn't seem to make that likely, but machinations can happen when power is at stake (see U.S. healthcare bill voting shenanigans).

The constitutional position is quite clear: Brown is Prime Minister until he isn't. (I know, but remember, this is the country that invented cricket ). In other words, he can hang on until the Queen's Speech on May 25th. If he can go to Her Majesty and claim that he can command the confidence of Parliament, he has the right to try and form a government.

In practice, he would need the entire rank of smaller parties to join a coalition and still barely have a majority. The Liberal Democrats have already shot this fox anyway.

Brown will have to resign shortly. He is, however, the kind of man without any sense of personal honour that might actually put the Queen in the position where she is finally the one to tell him to go. Nonetheless, I have this delicious vision of Her Majesty crushing his last fingernail with her stiletto heel and watching him plummet to the abyss of obscurity.

[Furunculus]

Seeing as we are discussing politics here I should perhaps declare that I'm all for a discussion on scrapping Trident. From the little I know, there are no projected state led threats to the UK, and I don't see a nuclear deterrent being that usefull against small groups that hide among large civilian populations.

Edit: getting rid of trident would be prudent at this time, apart from fictional wars in the minds of armchair generals with China and Russia they are useless, what we nee is better equipment for the troops we send out rather than some useless weapon we would probably only consider using once the end is nigh anyway

keeping trident is THE most obvious and sensible choice available.

it is a political tool in addition to be being a military one, and it is part of the reason why we retain a security council seat, which is by definition a good thing; you either have the influence to shape the world in your image, or you have to accept that you must adapt to a world shaped by others.
keeping the deterrent is also the ultimate insurance, that along with our island status, that utterly prevents existential military threats to the british isles, and allow us not to maintain the large standing armies common on the continent.
if you are going to keep a deterrent then it has to be trident, because nothing else is as effective and cheaper.

the lib-dems are also disinterested in maintaining the ability for sovereign and strategic power projection, and another key ability that allows security council membership alongside the deterrent, and as we determined above Great Power status is a useful thing that ANY and EVERY nation should aspire to.

the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is retarded.

[al Roumi]

keeping trident is THE most obvious and sensible choice available.

it is a political tool in addition to be being a military one, and it is part of the reason why we retain a security council seat, which is by definition a good thing; you either have the influence to shape the world in your image, or you have to accept that you must adapt to a world shaped by others.
keeping the deterrent is also the ultimate insurance, that along with our island status, that utterly prevents existential military threats to the british isles, and allow us not to maintain the large standing armies common on the continent.
if you are going to keep a deterrent then it has to be trident, because nothing else is as effective and cheaper.

the lib-dems are also disinterested in maintaining the ability for sovereign and strategic power projection, and another key ability that allows security council membership alongside the deterrent, and as we determined above Great Power status is a useful thing that ANY and EVERY nation should aspire to.

the lib-dem defence and foreign policy is retarded.

1. Deterrent to whom?
2. The Security council is long due reform. Diplomaticaly, the UK is already more of a multilateral/coalition than bilateral player.
3. You are living in a dream world about "great power" status, were the Argies' to set a new claim on the Malvenas () the UK would be powerless to resist it.
4. If military power is what shapes the world, then it is in America's image -not the UKs.

[Furunculus]

1. Deterrent to whom?
2. The Security council is long due reform. Diplomaticaly, the UK is already more of a multilateral/coalition than bilateral player.
3. You are living in a dream world about "great power" status, were the Argies' to set a new claim on the Malvenas () the UK would be powerless to resist it.
4. If military power is what shapes the world, then it is in America's image -not the UKs.

1. it is a tool for political influence, it has utility in advance of the purely military
2. sure, and we'll still be among the top ten provided we want the role
3. Capability + Will = Influence - to think otherwise is ridiculous
4. Hard-power, Soft-power, Economic-power are all important, but strategic power projection is an essential capability for a UNSC member, given that the SC needs to be able to coerce malefactors.

[al Roumi]

1. it is a tool for political influence, it has utility in advance of the purely military

How about a cost based analysis of the influence it provides against that which could be achieved through other (perhaps more socially and economically constructive) means?

2. sure, and we'll still be among the top ten provided we want the role

Hopefully, but it will (or ought to be) for more than the British expeditionary appetite.

3. Capability + Will = Influence - to think otherwise is ridiculous

My point exactly, we don't have the "capability" to match our "will".

4. Hard-power, Soft-power, Economic-power are all important, but strategic power projection is an essential capability for a UNSC member, given that the SC needs to be able to coerce malefactors.

Not so sure about this, is possession of a nuclear detterrent an entrance requriement to the Security council -if so, where are the Israeli, Indian and Pakistani seats? Secondly, if millitary capacity and "Global Policing" more generally are requirement and raison-d'etre, when have Russia or China ever "coerced" malefactors though military means?

Edit: China and (in practice) Russia fundamentaly resist any attempts to meddle in the internal affairs of other states. Not a great Policeman if you won't go into someone's house...

[Furunculus]

How about a cost based analysis of the influence it provides against that which could be achieved through other (perhaps more socially and economically constructive) means?

Hopefully, but it will (or ought to be) for more than the British expeditionary appetite.

My point exactly, we don't have the "capability" to match our "will".

Not so sure about this, is possession of a nuclear detterrent an entrance requriement to the Security council -if so, where are the Israeli, Indian and Pakistani seats? Secondly, if millitary capacity and "Global Policing" more generally are requirement and raison-d'etre, when have Russia or China ever "coerced" malefactors though military means?

Edit: China and (in practice) Russia fundamentaly resist any attempts to meddle in the internal affairs of other states. Not a great Policeman if you won't go into someone's house...

Fine, as long as you include its military utility in the cost/benefit analysis, i.e. the fact that we should want much greater conventional forces to make up for the security deficit introduced by ditching the deterrent. £1.5b/year for such an insurance policy is peanuts.

Sorry, don't understand that one..........?

Yes we do, read the RUSI FDR papers, then come back to me and say that.

Hard-power in addition to soft-power and economic power, we don't have a billion strong population to beef up our mandate, so we work in other ways.

It is the westphalian principle, and rightly so, but we have security council resolutions to enforce compliance, and compliance is enforced by threat.

[Beskar]

Blair introduced regional parliaments/assmblies for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but not England. In Westminster Labout has used Scottish MP's to pass laws that only affect England. This has now reached crisis point, because in England the Tories are well ahead with both votes and seats. If we had an English Parliament Labour would be mostly locked out of the demographic and economic core of the country.

That's why we don't have an English Parliament, it isn't in the interests in Labour.

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

[LittleGrizzly]

I have heard the security council seat brought up a few times... so I have a question...

Can Britian have its security council seat taken from it ?
Who has the power and will to take Britian's seat ? (We are lapsdogs for the Americans and not really all that dissimlair to the french, so would Russia and China rush to take our seat away... without the Americans or the French surely they couldn't...)
Why would they take Britians seat ? (It wouldn't seem to be in the interests of the French or the Americans)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Final prediction from me:

Cons 325
Lab 200
Lib 90

Cons 285
Lab 255
LibDem 85

Actual result: Cons 306
Lab 258
LibDem 57


Seats wrongly predicted:
Cons: Fur 19, LVI 21
Lab: Fur 58, LVI 3
LibDem: Fur 33, LVI 28


Total misses:
Furunculus 110, Louis 52.

[al Roumi]

Fine, as long as you include its military utility in the cost/benefit analysis, i.e. the fact that we should want much greater conventional forces to make up for the security deficit introduced by ditching the deterrent. £1.5b/year for such an insurance policy is peanuts.

Great! lets do the maths.

Sorry, don't understand that one..........?.

If the UK is to keep its Council seat, it will -and should- be for more than it's predilection for millitary expeditions.

Yes we do, read the RUSI FDR papers, then come back to me and say that..

Ah yes, a "strategic raiding force" based on naval power and short conflicts - because recent experience suggests its possible to get in and out of somewhere quickly... That will for going it alone is also something I'd personaly vote to diminish.

Hard-power in addition to soft-power and economic power, we don't have a billion strong population to beef up our mandate, so we work in other ways..

Indeed, hence the only vague benefits of a deterrent nowadays.

It is the westphalian principle, and rightly so, but we have security council resolutions to enforce compliance, and compliance is enforced by threat.

Yes but I don't think we (or anyone) ever even seriously threaten to deploy Nukes.

[gaelic cowboy]

So lads which Conservative highflyers are going to miss out on a cabinet seat due to Cameron having to offer them to the Lib Dems. Should make for some hilarious television over the next few days as certain furious Tories cop to the fact they are still out of the tent. Certain high profile names may be the price needed to be paid to head off electoral reform any party has a price Cam just needs to there one.




Oh and on a side note only one Unionist MP left in Belfast cue serious handwringing in DUP/UUP centrals respectively. Only for the fact that the SDLP rejected Sinn Fein's proposal to run unopposed nationalist candidates Nigel Dodds would have lost too. I expect Dodds will oust Robinson soon enough from Stormont too and thats no harm if you ask me.

[drone]

As usual, I am on the wrong side of this. I want us to be, as much as possible, the several states. Mostly, the vote is for us to scrap states in favor of one government running everything. The popular election of Presidents will occur in my lifetime (well, I hope to hit 80 something, so.....)

I'm not so sure it will happen. It will require an amendment, and the support for that amendment will be nil in the states with smaller populations. Just the kind of situation you and I approve of.

Brown will have to resign shortly. He is, however, the kind of man without any sense of personal honour that might actually put the Queen in the position where she is finally the one to tell him to go. Nonetheless, I have this delicious vision of Her Majesty crushing his last fingernail with her stiletto heel and watching him plummet to the abyss of obscurity.

Please, please, please let the BBC televise this event.

[Furunculus]

Great! lets do the maths.

If the UK is to keep its Council seat, it will -and should- be for more than it's predilection for millitary expeditions.

Ah yes, a "strategic raiding force" based on naval power and short conflicts - because recent experience suggests its possible to get in and out of somewhere quickly... That will for going it alone is also something I'd personaly vote to diminish.

Indeed, hence the only vague benefits of a deterrent nowadays.

Yes but I don't think we (or anyone) ever even seriously threaten to deploy Nukes.

you first, crack on..................

true, but you still need security council members who can and will project strategic force at need.

what you describe is COIN, that would be geared towards the Global Guardian doctrine, which if labour follow the IPPR report is what they will opt for, there is no indication that the Cons would go the same route.

no, we are still a great power by all three of the traditional metrics, the deterrent only reinforces that fact.

no one has ever suggested that the security council would attempt to coerce a malefactor by threatening nuclear Armageddon, which is why strategic power projection is essential.

[Furunculus]

So lads which Conservative highflyers are going to miss out on a cabinet seat due to Cameron having to offer them to the Lib Dems. Should make for some hilarious television over the next few days as certain furious Tories cop to the fact they are still out of the tent. Certain high profile names may be the price needed to be paid to head off electoral reform any party has a price Cam just needs to there one.

as long as their is a firm decision by the time the markets open on monday morning i don't care what the deal is, as long as it sticks to camerons red-lines on defence, and europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

If that is true then their would have been a nation-wide referrendum, "Do you want local-parliaments" and it would have been binding on all three Kingdoms, the Principality, and the Duchy. There wasn't because the project was a sop to Labour voters, hence Wales a Scotland first, then London, then the North.

Anyway, manufacturing and mining etc. weren't just in the North, it was also in the South West (copper, tin, and ships), Wales, (coal), the Midlands, (cars).

You just demonstrated a very regionalised view of the Thatcher years.

[gaelic cowboy]

as long as their is a firm decision by the time the markets open on monday morning i don't care what the deal is, as long as it sticks to camerons red-lines on defence, and europe.

So your fine with binning FPTP I thought that was sacrosanct for the Tory party and yourself too yes no. I would think Cons would be wary of opening up the system the Lib Dems have a popular percentage of 23% that could be a serious mistake for Cameron for the next election.

If I was Cameron I would offer some really major briefs to Lib Dems along with obviously the deputy prime minster job in return for giving them extra influence they drop electoral reform. The beauty of this if you give them some major but horrible cabinet briefs like health for instance the Cons dont get the blame for some of the decisions.

Of course STV style PR could help the two big parties just as much as the smaller ones we have had STV for years and we only ever have conservative parties in coalition with the Irish labour party.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, those are not the facts.

Apart from the fact an English parliament would screw over the North (who voted Labour) and would be stuck as a slave-whipped boy to be exploited, with their grand plans of deindustratalisation. (Where were all the manufacturing jobs, coal mines, etc? They were in the North, where were all the finiance centers? in London, guess who Thatcher destoryed and boosted?).

The original plan was regional parliaments, which are currently governed by Quango's, to become elected. This was partly done (London Assembly), however, it hit a problem when a bunch of idiots from the North-East turned down their regional assembly, which caused a big deadlock in the system, as they can't really go ahead with it, without it happening there. The government should have just forced the change through.

I think the problem with your argument here is that if the north did indeed get screwed over, this would be due to the fact that the Tory MP's were fairly elected, and represent the views of the country as a whole. In contrast to this, the issue raised by PVC (the West Lothian Question as we call it) relates to inequalities which are codified into the constitutional settlement itself. When Scottish MP's can vote on specifically English issues, and the reverse isn't true, then you have created two classes of MP's.

All the solutions to this, whether English votes on English laws, or an English Parliament, have their flaws (look what happened to the West Indian Federation with Jamaica, the same situation would happen when a regional parliament is more powerful than the state one).

IMO we should scrap devolution and replace it with more meaningful localy government. It kept the Union strong in the past with Victorian liberalism and all that, why not now? The North East devolution referendum you referred to is not the solution, and it was only ever intended to promote economic development in the region, not provide an answer to the major constitutional issues.

[Beskar]

The North East devolution referendum you referred to is not the solution, and it was only ever intended to promote economic development in the region, not provide an answer to the major constitutional issues.

It does both, as it would be the MP's in those areas which decide on the policies, not those from Scotland or London (other than in the Scottish/London areas, which is obvious)

[al Roumi]

you first, crack on..................

true, but you still need security council members who can and will project strategic force at need.

what you describe is COIN, that would be geared towards the Global Guardian doctrine, which if labour follow the IPPR report is what they will opt for, there is no indication that the Cons would go the same route.

no, we are still a great power by all three of the traditional metrics, the deterrent only reinforces that fact.

no one has ever suggested that the security council would attempt to coerce a malefactor by threatening nuclear Armageddon, which is why strategic power projection is essential.

We are taklking about Trident, or a nuclear deterent. Not all those points above are dependent on the UK possessing one.

Australia, for example, maximises it's contribution in "coalitions of the willing" by focusing on its comparative advantage in a composite force. Perhaps the UK's capability could better complement the US' in this way than as a mini me?

AFAIK our options internationaly are either to stick our heads int he sand as France did until Sarkozy, or continue to play patsy to whoever sits in the Oval office.

Edit: Good weekend all, we'll see how the politicos sort themselves out...

[Beskar]

Anyway, manufacturing and mining etc. weren't just in the North, it was also in the South West (copper, tin, and ships), Wales, (coal), the Midlands, (cars).

You just demonstrated a very regionalised view of the Thatcher years.

Midlands is classed as the North with the North/South divide is at the Watford Gap. In terms of Great Britain, Wales and Scotland are lumped with the North.

Only place different is the South-West, which want their own assembly/parliament anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_nationalism

[Strike For The South]

So now the queen rules.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It does both, as it would be the MP's in those areas which decide on the policies, not those from Scotland or London (other than in the Scottish/London areas, which is obvious)

Well, the interesting thing about the resounding 4:1 no vote is that a lot of people voted no on the grounds that it would have no real power, and was just creating more pointless politicians. A sentiment which has probably only increased today.

I think it is all a non-issue. With the decline of the welfare state and its centralised nature, combined with bottom-up regionalism through the expansion of power of government offices. Heck check the budgets for the regional development agencies since 1999.

All this nonse about demanding representation for your region/city/street/backyard is, well... just that, nonsense. A strong local government is much more useful than populist demands for autonomy for arbitrary regions just because people got upset that their party of choice isn't sitting in Westminster.

Ugh... that is a major issue here, with people talking about a boost for independence of the Tories win. *gah*

[Subotan]

What's the difference between Nick Griffin and a Bus?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A Bus has seats

[InsaneApache]

So now the queen rules.

Indeed. It looks like Madge will have to send the Blues and Royals into No. 10 to prise our Ex- Great Leaders fingers off the door jam.

Three cheers for Brenda.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Midlands is classed as the North with the North/South divide is at the Watford Gap. In terms of Great Britain, Wales and Scotland are lumped with the North.

Only place different is the South-West, which want their own assembly/parliament anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_nationalism

This is only one understanding of our political geography, and if you look at the Electoral Map by that standard the "North" has plenty of Tories, so they wouldn't be dissadvantaged.

Anyway, the Cornish are a seperate issue from the South West/Wessex, because of the historic Stanary Parliament.

[Vladimir]

Indeed. It looks like Madge will have to send the Blues and Royals into No. 10 to prise our Ex- Great Leaders fingers off the door jam.

Three cheers for Brenda.

Awesome! Please do.

[tibilicus]

I think we might see a loose Con/Lib "National Government" as opposed to a conventional coalition government. This will probably require a concession on electoral reform from the Conservatives. This situation seems ideal for both parties as the Lib Dems wont have to be attached to the accountability of Conservative policy, something its party members will see as desirable. As long as Clegg agrees the Lib Dems wont block the Queens Speech or initiate a loss of supply the Conservatives can probably legislate for now, although another election will be needed not to far into the future.

I think Brown's hopes of hanging on are unrealistic now. The Welsh want £300 million, that's about £100 million per MP and I don't want to think what the other parties will demand, minus the SDLP who already take the Labour whip.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed. It looks like Madge will have to send the Blues and Royals into No. 10 to prise our Ex- Great Leaders fingers off the door jam.

Three cheers for Brenda.

Better to use riflemen for nasty work like that, the Guards don't like to get blood on their pretty uniforms.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So now the queen rules.

As the Doctor Who series predicted in The Beast Below.

[InsaneApache]

Better to use riflemen for nasty work like that, the Guards don't like to get blood on their pretty uniforms.

No. You're right. McRuin isn't able stand up to the Brownies, therefore step up a notch and send the cubs in. Woggle firmly in hand!