Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
well, that's something to watch when I get in after work.
but would carry on as caretaker until a new one was chosen.
Tempted to put a quid on Tony Blair :D
just going on the course of the day's events and what the various parties had planned and budgeted for, but I didn't think it'd happen this soon in the coalitive process. Is he stopping on as PM alone until Cameron/Milliband gets their gang together?
the prime minister is RESIGNING. i mean we knew it would happen but it is still major! this means that labour will have to elect a new leader, and in effect potentially a new prime minister. how is this not important?!
right guys Major hahahahahahahaha
To quote thewarn: JFC wept.
I WAS BEING SARCASTIC.
i havent said that since year 4.
and a winner don't never quit
Also, there's no one at the moment in the party that'd do a good job as leader. Alan Johnson can fuck off. Hated him since he sacked that chief drugs adviser. Ed Balls has got a stupid face, and voice. Ed Miliband's got a sort've stupid face. David Milliband isn't human.
but basically i reckon a lib-lab coalition was pretty much inevitable. lib dems can't let this chance for PR to go (they would have got something like 150 seats with it) and there's all the riots and stuff, and there's no way tories would give that. at all. the majority of this is all spin, clegg is talking to the tories because they have the majority. talks may be 'going well' but that doesn't mean anything.
Just not "officially".
when boy george tried to make some joke about mandy and mandy looked all hurt said i thought id made a friend on my boat holiday and here hes turned against me on camera
Can someone do some internet magic to put it on YouTube please?
Mostly because his name makes me chuckle.
Bit embarrassing if a PM lost his seat in an election. I'd like to see it though.
it was 1000 majority in the end. but it's still a close seat.
I meant "entirely".
Balls who said that faith schools can teach any sex education they like, no matter how fucked up and wrong it is?
I am the first for breaking news.
the Lib Dems will be willing to put their own electoral interests ahead as a priority above economic stability? If true, Clegg deserves to be annihilated at the polls next time round. To prop up Labour, with or without Brown, would be unforgivable.
and when I say 'more' I mean 'entirely'
that the party even survives to the next election and doesn't just implode.
as CONTEMPORARY ART. that's right, a tory art installation. that's my joke. LAUGH.
He can do damage more to the Tories by not being leader than he can by sticking around.
GO GO GO
They should make Jack Straw the leader so he can hypnotise the nation
do decide party preservation outweighs the nation's economy, then Cameron should lead a minority government. From which point will likely gain a majority in an autumn election.
Electoral reform can wait. The current system is outdated, but PR phases out local constituents, thus requires more consideration than two days debate.
For now, priority is the economy. Markets bounced due to the eurozone bailout, the pound fell upon Brown's announcement. Would it be the national interest to allow the government responsible for the catastrophic debt to ensure it's recovery? When they've just lost near 100 seats? With an unelected new leader? Combined with the squabbling Libs/SNP/whoever else we can cobble together? Recipe for disaster.
Come off it, if they allow it to be put on the backburner it'll be quietly forgotten and we'll be stuck with the same old crap for the next decade or two.
going into the election. Three lines of prediction, charting debt and spending, all exactly the same. (All three had been broadly shown to be rather ineffective, though that's beside the point.) The question to ask isn't how much cutting is necessary (answer: a lot), but what should be cut first and what should be protected. For this I would not want a tory government in place.
An with respect to reform: crisis is exactly the time to press the advantage.
it would be. because the conservatives have consistently been wrong about the economy, and because blaming the labour party for a global recession is pretty stupid really.
frankly, any argument that a coalition would be less legitimate than a conservative minority government is absurd. it is perfectly legitimate.
and no, electoral reform cannot wait. it is constantly being put off. it has to happen now.
He needs the backing of the LibDems (whatever form that might take).
"Electoral reform can wait."
Not according to the Tories. They've just had a change of heart over the whole issue, now that power is slipping away. Funny how Labour came out with the same line just before the election when it was clear that the game was up. They were deft enough to slip it into the manifesto so that they could claim they were considering it all along, should the circumstance arise where they need to (semi-)credibly embrace some sort of reform. Whaddya know? They now do.
"PR phases out local constituents"
Not necessarily true at all. It's just not not as simple as that though. FPTP is borked. How about we have STV constituencies twice as big as the ones we have now? You could have 2 MPs per constituency. And while that might not /quite/ maintain the supposedly local links of FPTP, you'd be able to write to or speak to one of 2 local MPs representing you. And it's a lot more likely that one of those 2 MPs will actually give a shit compared to the one single MP option you have at present. If that MP is not politically aligned with you due to your constituency being a safe seat of a party you're not keen on then good luck in getting anywhere with your enquiry.
"more consideration than two days debate"
The LibDems have been campaigning for electoral reform since their inception. Before that there numerous bodies pushing for reform. And in the last 30 years there have been supposedly serious suggestions that it needs to be taken seriously. But the red/blue see saw has managed to keep enough of a hold on power to be able to knock it into the long grass. Just because the Tories have had their fingers in their ears for forever (and Labour have had conveniently selective hearing) doesn't mean the whole thing hasn't been thought through, discussed, debated, and researched by numerous individuals and organisations.
was not a massive issue heading into the election - I think most people's concerns reflected their jobs, taxes, defence, immigration, europe. An all-party committee to consider the possibilities is a fair deal. If Labour believed in it, they had 13 years to change it. Only now they've been humiliated by the electorate have they suddenly leapt to the feet of the Lib Dems desires.
Regards the economy, Labour created this debt and should be allowed nowhere near. Conservative cuts may be severe, but their attempts to trim the public sector and invigorate the private sector is precisely the course of action to take.
what matters is if it can be squeezed through before everyone forgets about it again.
Conservative cuts are not more severe than the others; but by all indications they will put the needs of the well off above the needs of everyone else.
Saying Labour created this debt is like blaming someone for the New Orleans floods beacause they left their bath taps running.
Darling and Cable would be far better for the economy than letting 'modern historian' George Osbourne anywhere near it.
there was a global recession, but Labour could have certainly put aside funds for potentially tougher times rather than mortgaging this country to the hilt. Did Brown not raid the state pensions? Did he not sell half our gold reserves? Did a state-owned bank (RBS) not loan billions to an American company to purchase a British company (Cadburys) costing jobs?
is show how absurd the 2-party dominated system is. In practice we have no way of demonstrating which of the nuances of either we'd prefer to have in place; instead we're stuck playing guessing games at how the other would have done (which is likely to be exactly the same, perhaps a little bit worse, perhaps a little bit better) and lurching back and forth between them like a confused labrador.
he's probably good at chess
he seems to have maneuvered himself into quite a commanding position though
Might even end up as next Prime Minister in an all-against-the-tories tag-team
the shrewder Clegg appears. It must have been pretty easy for him to go all dewy eyed at the prospect of some kind of power sharing deal with either party, but he seems to be doing a fair job of looking after his party's interests. In fact, it almost looks as though he's playing the two main parties off against eachother, like he was dragging his heels with the Tories in an attempt to force Gordon's hand.
Opik, much as I love him is a bit of a Benny Hill politician.
which might've made things a little tricky
but equally, his party did lose seats on polling day.
He's incredibly fortunate, yet remains in a precarious spot. Back the Tories and agitate the party activists who could eventually decapitate him? Back Labour and be seen to prop a thoroughly discredited, defeated government, which could result punishment at the next election? Or there could be no deal (Tories in minority govt) leaving Clegg firmly at square one?
he's in both an extremely powerful and dodgy position.
Although I would point out that whilst the Lib Dems lost seats, their share of the vote increased which would only support what they've been pushing for in terms of voter reform.
Stepping down right after an election is not cool. That's what Tories do.
I remember saying months ago it was really unfair for Clegg to be so vague about his intentions for a hung parliament. It's caused so much trouble and he definitely has a worrying amount of power. PR will only be properly democratic if the electorate have some idea which way LD are going before the election. Does anyone know how its done other balanced parliament countries?
Coalitions and Alliances are set BEFORE election campaigns are rolled out and it makes the whole process a lot more transparent
Would it mean we'd just get endless Lab-Lib coalitions? Is that why you guys all want it?
some single issue parties will form
other parties might be created from either new ideologies or (more likely) breakaway factions
of course, much of this depends on what electoral financial provisos/caps/allocations are bundled in with the electoral reform (if any)
that it seems a bit optimistic to think any parties with real political weight will emerge, at least within our lifetimes. I think our political system is just too well ingrained for the electorate to be willing to change it, even if the politicians are willing to give it a go. That's mainly just my instinctive feeling, but I think the fact the Lib Dems have just *lost* seats, despite the fact the opinion polls showed an enormous rise in popularity, suggests likewise. They may have gained votes, but that was only within constituencies that they were already established as a serious prospect. New parties may emerge which have a chance of making their mark within individual constituencies, but within Parliament? I can't see it happening.
you're right of course but demographics do change
how many pensioners are there in the UK? Roll up some general bigotism with a pension increase and an age weighting on NHS waiting lists and you've got a couple of million votes right there
Have the Libs spelled out there specifics of their PR system at all?
Hmm I'm not sure who AV favours but off the top of my head, I would think the Tories.
Will give it a go on the morrow.
When you've got PR there's less incentive for the largest parties to contain as large a variety of views, so you often get offshoots splitting off and sucking up a lot of votes. Then you get parties founded on issues that are vote winners which then broaden their appeal once they get to a certain size.
It's often noted that huge numbers of people say they would vote for the Lib Dems if they thought that they had a chance of getting into office, but that no doubt applies to UKIP too, which is a very successful party considering its age and its resources. Under a PR system I really don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that UKIP will end up sucking up a lot of the isolationist right from the Tories in the same way that the Liberal-SDP alliance (which became the Liberal Democrats) took away a lot of the anti-authoritarian left away from Labour.
The Greens and the BNP are also smaller parties that are ostensibly focused on single issues, but they have definite manifestos - interestingly, whilst their social policies are radically different, they're both rather traditionally socialist (very Old Labour in attitude towards heavy industry and state intervention in the economy). Under PR they'd both increase their number of MPs and end up broadening their appeal beyond a simple single issue, and there are umpteen dozen other parties that could achieve one or two MPs quite easily and have some influence on national government without anywhere near the effort needed now.
unless the Tories are allowed 2 candidates for every constituency. One centre-right, one slightly further right. They should give the Lib Dems PR with that caveat.
Can you explain it more?
I think I've been political enough as it is. Let's all just forget about the election and be friends again.
by your enigmatic style of posting.
resembles the Popular vote but not exactly, obviously
And in what's essentially a 3 party system, it's going the mean lots of hung parliaments, in which case there will be a coalition in every case. And with Labour and Liberal being more ideological alligned may lead to endless LibLab coalitions. I think that's what he's getting at, anyway.
If I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected.
unless that was a joke
"I voted for Kodos"
allowing Brown to announce the opening of talks was a hugely risky move, yet it seems to have paid off to an extent few would have expected. The Conservatives seem to have seen the potential for power to slip away at the last moment and they've conceded on tax (which doesn't entirely surprise me... relatively easy for Cameron to sell to the party as something that proves they've changed, and allows them to push through things like the inheritance tax change), but more significantly Cameron seems to have convinced the parliamentary party to allow the prospect of the same electoral reform Labour are offering.
There's surely no way that the Lib Dems would have expected to have this much on the table overnight.
Surely they can just bank on the fact that another general election will be brought in by a vote of no confidence within a few months and given they're the only party with money, and given anyone who voted Lib Dems before who has a smidgen of loyalty for them will be voting for them, they can't fail to romp home with a majority.
then constitutionally, there's sod all the Conservatives can do about it. The Queen can't be seen to talk to Cameron about forming her government until Brown resigns.
So it's more about him not being able to form a government. I see your point, though. But every implies the Tories could choose to do that, which suggests they didn't have to wait for Gordon to say he had no better suggestion.
The PM won't resign until there's another man ready to step in - that way the Queen knows that the person she approaches will be ready to form a government. She doesn't actually get involved in the political discussions, which she'd be doing so if she spoke to Cameron before Brown resigns.
Ultimately, if Brown can attempt to form a reasonable government (majority or otherwise), then the Queen will allow him to do so. Much of the press probably wishes it wasn't the case, but thems the rules.
NC: Referendum on PR?
NC: Fancy a Pro Evo sesh to fill a few hours so it looks like we at least tried?
DC: As long as I get to be Brazil in their blue away kit.
NC: No worries, I'll be Sweden.
DC: Can we turn offsides off? They're complicated and I won't be able t...o lurk near the goal waiting for my turn to score an easy tap in and win.
GB: Hi Nick. I'm thinking of moving out and have a new copy of FIFA that you can play on with my mates. Everyone knows FIFA's better these days, huh? And those cool Celtic lads from the rough estate said they'd pop round. That nice lass from Brighton said she might join in, too. Should be a good party. Shame I can't be there for it.
NC: Sounds pretty cool, to be fair.
DC: *Curses* Hey, Nick! I've got a copy of Virtua Soccer for the Sega Saturn.
DC: We can keep offsides turned on.
NC: Grow up, Dave.