Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
He's like ninety and has been on live TV for well over eight hours now. Dude is a machine.
that he has been running the country during this night. he has about 9 computer screens in front of him at the moment - there's no way he need all those unless he was basically in charge.
who didn't get to vote.
what a glorious morning.
how else would this work out? Clegg fell at the final hurdle and Brown is strongly disliked by the majority of the country. Cameron, in most people's minds, seems not so much as the lesser of three evils but merely a more perceptible and viable Prime Minister. Conservatives have got 40% popular vote in England as well.
I can't see any other route; however prolonged it may prove to be, he probably will.
with Brown retiring after pushing through electoral reform with the support of the smaller parties.
Well, not this time.
I'm clinging desperately to it
Labour - Lib Dem - SDLP - SNP - Plaid Cymru - Green coalition.
...or something like that.
but I don't know if the Queen would accept a Government formed purely on the basis of voting for electoral reform, given they'll be unlikely to agree on anything else.
Add to that the idea that not all Labour MPs may agree with a PR system. I can't see any Conservatives breaking ranks and voting for.
It's unworkable. Cameron's going to form a minority government and then have another election within the year and sweep the boards. :(
Her only role is to invite whoever looks like they can command a majority in the house to form a government, and if that's the leader of a mongrel coalition of every party that isn't the Tories then that's what she'd do.
She has the right to say, "This does not look like a governing coalition," and I'd say if you're looking at a bunch of parties that can only be said to agree on ONE idea, that's no good.
The Tories, and Labour I think, did not have a promise to bring in PR in their manifestos. So however it looks right now, you have to take into account that a vast majority of the electorate maybe never even voted for this change.
Even if it was put out there it would still have to survive a referendum and with the Tories, and therefore a majority of the press, against it, I'm don't know that it would pass, even if the majority of the electorate were open to the idea. And we have no idea if they are.
that it wouldn't be clear if they could pass the budget. Electoral reform would be a concession from Labour to the other parties. In return they would prop up the government (in which they've also been offered cabinet positions and a veto on who is PM)
Clegg would be crazy and a crap person to turn that down.
The Palace has managed to maintain the popularity of the Royal Family, in large part, by staying the hell away from anything remotely political. I think that the Queen would accept any coalition that was put before her, and if it fails she knows that it would be the coalition's leader who took the bullet, not her.
you think that's the only thing they agree on? they're all loosely centre left parties, no?
atleast if the conservatives had got a clear win they would have been unelectable for a generation after (as the bank of england guy says) and atleast if there was a stronger lib/labour then some of the right choices would be made and some notion of social justice upheld, there doesnt seem to be a bright side here. kinda hope there is another election and the ld and labour campaign together to do whatever it takes to keep the tories out
if we can just get that...
If the tories got in it would have been a fucking disaster
and I doubt the public will approve so it may fall apart and leave the conservatives stronger
It'll be no more cobbled together than any of the other options. SNP and Plaid Cymru can even agree to abstain in some stuff, if they really want.
JUST PLEASE GOD CLEGG AN BROWN GET TOGETHER SOON AND DO SOMETHING
There are 41 seats left and Labour or the Lib Dems would need to win 32 of them (or something) to have a majority.
they're on 296 now. Scottish and Welsh nationalists are on 9. They can get about 20 in the next lot.
Need to not forget the Unionists. I would have a lot more respect for the Tories if they wheeled out Ken Clarke more. I imagine he smells of whisky.
Yes, other parties may get involved but the SNP and Plaid Cymru's (entirely logical) demands regarding spending in their respective regions could be problematic for the English side of any party trying to govern with them as allies.
is a relative success, personally.
but one which I know some conservatives were secretly hoping for- outright government would be a poison chalice right now. I on the other hand, am a power crazed punatic and would just take the chalice and run, thankyou. Anyway, 4 of my best friends from uni all won their seats (3 cons, 1 LD), plus that cunt Griffin didn't make much of a dent, so on a personal note i'm pleased.
SO, there's still 40-odd seats to declare, so let's see what the morning brings (EXCITING)...... and as suspected sterling has dived (worrying but expected).
but I'll be sure to pass on your plea ;)
Seriously though, the 3 conservatives are all good people, and although I don't envy them their task, I'm really excited for them.
because they actually believe what is good for the well off is best for everyone, its more a blindness than a badness
Traditionally, conservatives are the party who encourage you to better yourself in terms of your job, standard of living etc bUT I do have only so much patience for people who have the ability and tools available to better themselves but choose not to do so. I'll be happily taxed to the hilt to support people less fortunate who need it, but I simply will not subsidise laziness. Is this the kind of attitude that gets up your nose, because to me this is just common sense?
This is really the gap for the Tories' 'help yourself' sort of philosophy: it's actually really really not easy to come up from a very low place.
Just like anecdotes (heh) a few people pulling themselves out of slums and the like doesn't mean the others could have and didn't. There are so many factors and often it's about the luck of a certain teacher in a certain comprehensive or a parent with a slightly different attitude, or a kid that's lucky to escape a dodgy set of friends...
I agree that the 'hand-up not hand-out' policy is a disaster to execute when you're dealing with people who are trapped in long term cycles of behaviour- and that is something which they are very aware of. Vocational trainin and incentivisation, along with cbt where needed in extreme cases, seems to be the consensus.
What about the lazy rich people who are born into wealth, for some reason they don't seem to get looked at in quite the same disparaging way. Is hard work only morally right for the poor?
I mean your taxes are only paying for them to have their bins collected. That's how it should be. And they still get taxed on their wealth.
If that's true, then everyone should be working hard regardless of whether the financial reward is necessary to them or not.
Having said that, this is probably a poor point to try and make.
The point is about 'self reliance'. I.e. you provide for yourself and then you can do what you want, just don't come crying to the state if you sat on your arse with loads of cash and lost it all because you failed to pay attention.
It's all a bit silly because as we know there's no plateau where everyone is uniformly rich, you have to have poor people for the rich people to be that rich in the first place. Like a pyramid scheme.
It's this kind of thing that I'm thinking of. But this is victorian era quote I believe, so whether or not many people still hold it to be true today is one of (possibly many) the flaws in my point.
However, some of them are- some of them are and know they are, some of them are but don't realise it. Many of them are trapped in cycles of long-term unemployment (which often has the knock-on effect of mental illness) and genuinely do not have to tools to get out of that. These are not the people I was talking about, as you very well know, you obtuse boy.
Also, I wasn't just talking about the unemployed- there are plenty of people who moan about their shit job and who are perfectly capable of sucking it up and doing something about it.. but..... no. And so it's no wonder sympathy runs out. THere simply isn't enough money to go round to help the most needy and trapped whilst also supporting the self-indulgent.
FInally, if you don't know self-made people, are you saying most people that you know were born into privilege? The vast majority of people I know are self-made, so I can only imagine that we move in entirely different solar systems.
It's perhaps how they've attempted to sell themselves for the last 10 or so years, but 'traditionally' they've been incredibly tough on anyone vaguely working class.
"people who have the ability and tools available to better themselves but choose not to do so"
what is bettering oneself exactly? the Tory definition of 'success' is so narrow it makes me feel more than a little ill.
and I can't quite believe I used it. However I stand by the sentiment. There's no rule which says that you have to attain certain things in order to be validated or to have a more comfortable standard of living- that's fine, but don't then complain about the person who has chosen to do just that.
The vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle- and OF COURSE luck has a huge part to play in whether you go one of two ways, but once you've chosen that path, it needn't be the only way. I went to one of the shittiest state schools in the country (in greenock ffs) and have seen loads of people I went to school with go one way and then back again. Personally, previously having chosen the path of hard work, academia and a profession, I am now desperately trying to give this up and break into drug-dealing and madaming.
in a Tory rant somewhere recently?
I was raised on one of the most crime-ridden council estates in one of the most impoverished boroughs in the country, but even I had breaks others weren't fortunate enough to receive and it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people born into disadvantage die there.
But I think you're in danger of over-estimating the middle ground—that is, the amount of people who make a subconscious decision further their career by using enterprising qualities not inherent in everyone.
Needless to say, the amount of people who need an unimaginable amount of discipline and entrepreneurial to break the social strata and ascend the social ladder far outweighs those that have been privileged enough to have ample opportunities, hereditary or through some other circumstance. Simply said, there are more people down there than up there, and I'm not talking geographically.
complaining about people that try to improve their standard of living? who does that?
I know a great many people who begrudge anyone who has made money from anything other than slow, solid ladder climbing. Several friends I have see that as completely unfair, which is hilarious.
what on earth are you talking about?
you say 'who complains about people who try to improve their standard of living?'
I'm saying: success of any sort is quite often begrudged, especially if it happens quickly. People *do* moan about those who succeed with their aspirations.
people being dicks on an individual basis is one thing...
There will always be have nots who begrudge haves in an envious way but there's envy on all kinds of things.
I think people moan about people who make more money when they have money, generally at the expense of those who don't have money.
I mean, I doubt anyone has a problem with a plumber who makes a big success of his career unless he made money by overcharging for shoddy work. But they'll probably have a bit of a problem with someone who makes money by buying loads of property thus making it hard for first time buyers and profiting off people who have no choice but to rent. Because, well, it's an example of making more money by having money.
Similarly bankers who get rich these days are naturally going to be viewed with more than a little incredulity and again, I don't think you can really feel that's a particularly terrible thing.
it's all very well to say people who have worked to get where they are shouldn't be resented for it, but the plain fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the richest (or even just 'quite rich') people in this country did not get there by sheer hard work and willpower, but by being lucky and clever and astute at manipulating money
but they choose the wrong party to pursue those beliefs.
but let's agree to differ.
being 100% conservative cliche, he used to regale us with tales of society events and maggie thatcher drinking chants
And you're going on the basis of ONE anecdote. Amazing.
ive been alive long enough to know what the tories (as a whole) are about
you've decided that because someone goes to society events, they don't care about the disadvantaged?
Struggling to see leap.
but he was an elitist and relished the priviledged lifestyle, I was just trying to get that across
I was fearing we'd be close to Euro parity.
I'd take a bit of a rattling now for some longer term currency stability in the months ahead.... this is not what the 'recovery' needs.
...now if only 30 years of Thatcher/Thatcher-Lite hadn't made sure we didn't have any exports. ;-)
There's always winners and losers with economics. Rob is doing a victory dance because his business is benefiting massively from the currency slide. On the other hand, one of the deals I'm working on is going to be stuffed until there's more currency stability, and my client's probably going to lose his house and business and hundreds of staff made redundant. It's a sad one (although sadder for me cos I'm supposed to be off today and am fielding calls already).
But you're on calls today? FFS. Never a moment's rest :-(
tough times ahead and they can (probably slightly fairly) blame any failings on their not having complete control, if there is another election they will probably come out stronger and will push back the next election that could get rid of them back further
and to be honest it doesn't look good for a lot of you on here
Can't wait to see Iain Dale's package
Which just goes to show how bad the pre-polling has been this year. None of them predicted this.
I was quite up for staying up, but bf persuaded me to go to bed on the basis that the exit polls were shite and the swing was going to deliver a conservative government. And yet here we are.
*checks twitter again. Still no sign of iain dale's nob*
I think he hasn't really done that well given the circumstances
he could've land slided it like tony blair if he hadn't been such a fucking reptilian robot.
12 months ago a Tory majority was pretty much a gimmee. Somehow, Cameron and co. have managed not to tap into the open net from 6 yards.
Dear Ulster Unionists- please don't give this third-generation Irish lapsed Catholic another reason to fucking despise you.
Then they really can’t be seen to be propping up Labour. They have to show that hung parliaments can work, and in a situation where the vote is more widely split (which is surely what you’d get with PR) then its only just for the party with the most support to be the linchpin of the new government. If they side with Labour then it throws the whole idea into disrepute, where the party with the most seats is rejected due to in-Parliament loyalties and interests
So yep, I think D-Cam is our new guy. The cunt
the very best he'll offer is an unsupported referendum at an indeterminate future date, possibly even insisting on writing the no-doubt befuddling referendum question itself
LibDems won't go for that
it seems pretty clear that he's going to have to go for minority rule and probably rely on the Ulster Unionists (urgh) to get through a confidence vote
really rubbish outcome to be honest
but Labour & Brown will be busting a gut to get the LibDems onside for a coalition to stay in power
it could still go either way really
...having just purchased a Jens Lekman ticket.
Funny, the trivialities of life.
I stayed up too late.
so long as we get electoral reform out of it on the other side.
The UK is clearly a centre-left country (even in an anti-incumbent environment like this year, 60% DIDN’T back the Tories/other right wing parties) that all the same ends up being governed from the right half the time because of the cobwebbed flim flammery of the FPP system.
but am I the only left-leaning person who thinks the results have been fairly decent so far? The Conseratives don't have a majority to pass legislation, and given that their members are far more rebellious/less likely to toe party line than those of Labour or the Lib Dems, that could prove very damaging for them.
There's also at least some chance that the incumbents will form some sort of coalition government. It's not great, but this so much more than I could have hoped for seven or eight months ago.
...'fairly decent' with 'nowhere near as bad as were reasonably expected 12 months ago' and I'm with you.
they just need to pass one retrenching budget and fuck up public services, local authorities everything with massive cuts.
Maybe in another life David Cameron will do some sort of radical big society guff, but not now.
just make amendments to the current ones using statutory instruments.
Changing a few words in a sentence can feasibly change the scope of entire pieces of legislation and they don't have to be voted on.
being consistent, and I guess that should be applauded. It feels a bit like he's shot himself in the foot there...
I think he's being more subtle than that
I think he's actually lining up an attack on Tory minority rule
he's daring Cameron to come up with a deal
1054: Respect's George Galloway loses his bid to become MP for Poplar and Limehouse in east London. Labour minister Jim Fitzpatrick wins.
the more I think about his statement the more it seems like a supremely cunning come-on that consolidates the LibDems role as Kingmaker despite them not getting the predicted gains
I'm rather impressed
if he makes it a public discussion then he could swing it to the benefit of the lib dems and therefore, hopefully, the country. interesting.
I agree. Rather than allying himself with Cameron he's laying down quite a gauntlet.
He's going to need some support from LibLab to get things through...
So could see Cameron as PM unable to pass any legislation... another election soon?
some of his own party won't necesarily vote with him on legislation ...
The tories did not thrash labour at all, if they thrashed labour they would be in office today, wouldn't they?
some of the swings in what were safe areas were brutal. And labour were generally given a kicking, regardless of the MP balance.
it was a bit of a kicking. It should have been annihilation.
when you were 5-0 up
but i don't believe they were thrashed out of hand. cameron hasn't taken the people with him in the way that blair did and the anti-labour sentiment could collapse at any time, especially if brown steps down.
I don't agree on the latter: none of the potential front-runners in the labour party have a chance of inspiring confidence in the public right now.
Milly? Oh GOD no.
If you look at these results compared with the last election, the Tories have gained relatively few votes (about 700,000 or so), it's just that the Labour vote has divebombed
Brown and Clegg could CONSPIRE to use perfectly legitimate means to form a centre-left government that seemingly 60%, and therefore the majority, of the country would prefer to the Conservatives.
If this is a thrashing according to them, what does that make the results of 1983 or 1997?
the hung parliament has weekend the pound almost to parity with the Euro (following Greek shenanigans), and may possibly be a really good thing in the short term, especially in the unlikely event that a bailout actually happens for the Greeks.*
I feel like a mercenary. Bah.
David Dimbleby: still going strong after 11 hours.
he's going to fall asleep mid-conversation like my gran does.
that by inviting cameron to speak to him first clegg is actually pro-actively bypassing the convention that the sitting PM gets to try and form the government, and could, if cameron doesn't step up, help labour and the libdems find a way to form an alliance with a leader that isn't brown...
I had thought that myself.
in Number 10. And at Lib Dem HQ. And Tory HQ.
and not being entirely sure whether to eat it or not. A couple guys are still drunk, and keep pointing at Dave, whispering, and laughing.
Cameron is going to be under fire from his own party soon enough
some Tories threatening to go public in a revolt against a deal based on electoral reform
are the Conservatives going to shoot themselves in the foot? Has Clegg put the siamese among the sparrowhawks?
risk a minority government and hope for enough abstentions to get through the Queens' Speech and emergency budget rather than offer concessions on electoral reform?
the alternative being no confidence votes from his own party - which would be a hell of a blow if he were to gear towards winning an election re-run
how differently do you think things could have gone had Brown been axed prior to the campaign? I can't help thinking on balance he was a net negative in the greater scheme of things.
... he certainly didn't do anything to boost Labour
but that was all done in a deal with Tony back when they were at prep together or something so it's fairly moot
There's a large group of core Conservative MPs and activists who are extremely angry with the result, and are livid with Cameron for what they see as a rubbish campaign. They're also hugely against voting reform, which is contrary to the whispers coming out of Tory HQ - we could be looking at Cameron facing a revolt amongst the party rank and file before Brown does.
Meanwhile, it's starting to look like Clegg's offer of talks with the Tories is an attempt to call their bluff - the real aim is to get into a coalition with Labour, followed by a quick referendum on PR with another election that can solidify the new system. Everything coming out of Labour's HQ supports this - looks like Brown's relying on the SNP to make up the last gap to achieve a coalition with an overall majority.
Let's have a consensus National Unity Government of all parties with Ken Clarke as PM and Glenda Jackson as Home Secretary
There are 3 MPs in NI who take the Labour whip, plus the Alliance Party (who took Robinson's seat) takes the Lib Dem whip, so:
NI 4 +
Lib Dem ~60 +
So they just need to offer funding concessions to the SNP and Plaid Cymru and they'll be fine. Even without those two it's bigger than any realistic coalition that the Tories could form.
and the public voted against it. I wouldn't put it past them, the shifty, two-faced buggers.
Or indeed anyone living in rural areas since, presumably, their vote would begin to count less than urban voters'.
"Well, I, I've had enough of it!"
The man's going to do himself a mischief.
Did he have a break during the Breakfast show?
@clwppc Browns going to resign any minute
She's the failed lib candidate in my area.
He's making a statement any minute now, but it's probably just going to outline some of the aims that Labour have for forming a coalition.
Brown just blew it
I couldn't hear him past the sound of my dick screaming.
chances are we're going to have the chance to go through all this again within the year.
a long term stable government being formed at all by anyone.
still depressed and everything will go wrong though.
At least 100 Con MPs will decide to defect to Labour over the weekend.
DC is totally calling clegg out. all party committee on electoral reform. shit just got real.
Ooh. Oh. Ah.
Sorry I've just cum.
BREAKING NEWS:David Cameron urges the Lib Dems to work with him. This could mean a minority Conservative government or a "stronger, more collaborative" option.
Get your popcorn ready.
but, and i don't enjoy saying this, that was actually a really mature speech by cameron. first time he's sounded like pm to my mind.
an 'enquiry' on PR would achieve exactly nothing whatsoever.
Never mind the gap between the two parties on the economy.
or favourite colour
If the Lib Dems are so intensely focused on getting PR, then surely the Tories realise that fobbing them off with a mere 'inquiry' will result in their coalition collapsing...
...unless that's their plan, because by that point they reckon they'll be able to manage another election where they'll get a majority. Clever bastards.
I don't know about you, but this is all very surreal for me to watch unfold.
They just seem to be designed to make the system less representative. Good one.
NB Nice to see that Rory "The Good Nazi" Stewart won a seat.
I don't know much about Brit politics, except that you guys are probably facing becoming the next Greece if you're not careful. The way the US swings back and forth between the tight fiscal policies of the right (well, except for that last guy), and the freewheeling spending on the left...probably has a beneficial balance.
Will the Lib Dems or Labour be inclined to make the tough decisions? Probably not, right? So it's time to cut back on govt in Britain before things get massively out of hand. I listened to Cameron on one of the debates--he sounded pretty decent to me. (Brown seemed the weakest, actually.)
How ever it falls for you guys, good luck. x