I should probably say something more insightful, but I can't think of anything. Oh well. Let's get ready for the comedy election night on C4 and 5 years of rich-toffs screwing up the country.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
In other words, different cast, same characters? I think that defines politics in any country.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Over here, FOX is already crowing about your country's "Conservative Victory". As though your conservatives are also a bunch of bible-thumping, big business loving, anti-immigration, gun loving, brainless, slack-jawed science-deniers that think the South shall rise again, men should control a woman's reproductive rights, civil rights are for those that can afford to buy them, suspects are tried in the media and a massive deficit can be solved by fabricated overseas conflicts and, of course, tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.
But I may be wrong- it could be exactly that way (in which case, God help you).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I should probably say something more insightful, but I can't think of anything. Oh well. Let's get ready for the comedy election night on C4 and 5 years of rich-toffs screwing up the country.
Well it'd make a change from all the rich Scots screwing up the country...well the part of the country that's England, while somehow giving themselves a separate government that makes Scotland a better run place to live. Odd that.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Over here, FOX is already crowing about your country's "Conservative Victory". As though your conservatives are also a bunch of bible-thumping, big business loving, anti-immigration, gun loving, brainless, slack-jawed science-deniers that think the South shall rise again, men should control a woman's reproductive rights, civil rights are for those that can afford to buy them, suspects are tried in the media and a massive deficit can be solved by fabricated overseas conflicts and, of course, tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.
But I may be wrong- it could be exactly that way (in which case, God help you).
No, our conservatives have never been that interesting...OK Maggie, but that was the exception.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Ah, it's just a pity the Liberal Democrats failed to match the opinion polls at the ballot. Third place in the polls and seats with 23% of the votes rather undermines their good talk for proportional representation.
If they'd have done as well as predicted at the height of Clegmania they'd of still had fewer seats than a Labour or Conservatives but a higher percentage of the votes than Labour - a far better result. But the great public reverted to form and didn't vote for them because they wern't going to come first.
That was the point - they were not supposed to win. They were supposed to get the secondmost votes, come third for seats and bitch about the system for four years.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I was just struck by how long it's been. I mean, I felt all the 18 years of the previous regime. But, when new Labour were elected 13 years ago, well, put it this way, the notion of going to have a look on this internet thing to see if I could find any info on those strange new ships in First Contact hadn't occurred to me (and didn't for about another three months).
Labour didn't deserve to be in power anymore. Not that the economic crisis was their fault per se - no government would have done any different, and kept the financial sector properly regulated despite the certain total opposition of the City. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas! But they blew it.
Or rather, Brown did. He could be said to have blown his whole life, really - by standing aside for Blair to run for the leadership in 1994; by refusing to support a coup against Blair 5 years ago, by not holding that election in 2007 once he was finally Leader. In recognising that Party infighting was the curse of the Labour Party, he made his desire to avoid any infighting a rod for his own back.
Ironically, his decision to keep Britain out of the Euro (for largely personal reasons again, as it would diminish his power as Chancellor) may come to be regarded as his greatest hour in light of current events in the Eurozone.
I had a lot of hope for him at one time - I thought that his relative integrity would enable him to outshine Blair's tenure and become one of the truly great Prime Ministers - if he ever actually made it to Number 10. But as people are going to find out, a lot of his economic mircale was smoke and mirrors: his over-use of PFI deals for big public projects (very costly in the long term) enabled a lot of spending to be kept off the budget books and make it look as though his fiscal rules were being adhered to.
To quote Malcolm Tucker, today: "I have spoken with the Gordon. He's very tired. As I'm sure you know, all of the carbon in our bodies was created in the white heat at the centre of stars billions of years ago. We know this intellectually. But it's only when looking at Gordon's face that you really feel it."
I'm generally coming round to the idea of a Tory government that can't do much. It won't last long - they'll never give the Lib Dems what they want in terms of electoral reform: indeed, the Tories' stated plans to reduce the number of MPs will make the Commons even LESS representative.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: In recognising that Party infighting was the curse of the Labour Party, he made his desire to avoid any infighting a rod for his own back.
Obama should take note- the Republicans are all tools but they are unified tools (as a rule).
Too much accomidation, even to your own party, spells disaster.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Well it'd make a change from all the rich Scots screwing up the country...well the part of the country that's England, while somehow giving themselves a separate government that makes Scotland a better run place to live. Odd that.
Yeah, that's what it is, a massive Scottish conspiracy to ruin England. You got us. Because it's not as if Scotland has suffered at the hands of previous governments, is it? No, all milk and honey up here. Jesus.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I'm generally coming round to the idea of a Tory government that can't do much. It won't last long - they'll never give the Lib Dems what they want in terms of electoral reform: indeed, the Tories' stated plans to reduce the number of MPs will make the Commons even LESS representative.
I agree that if the Tories do go on to form a government then it won't last long - give it 9 months to a year and we'll all be back in the booths scratching out Xs on bits of paper again. However, if Clegg does make some kind of deal with the Tories - whether a formal coalition or just a deal by which a Tory minority government would function with Lib Dem abstentions on key votes - then his party will need to bear in mind that come the next election they're going to have to explain to the 5 million people who voted for a progressive, left-of-centre party why that progressive, left-of-centre party allowed a right-of-centre party to form a government when they had the chance to prevent it.
All in all, very interesting. I am starting to wonder, though, just how long the major news networks can keep coming up with interesting new variations on the basic theme of "people sitting in studio not knowing what is going on". Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Well it'd make a change from all the rich Scots screwing up the country...well the part of the country that's England, while somehow giving themselves a separate government that makes Scotland a better run place to live. Odd that.
Yeah, that's what it is, a massive Scottish conspiracy to ruin England. You got us. Because it's not as if Scotland has suffered at the hands of previous governments, is it? No, all milk and honey up here. Jesus.
I'm sorry, but devolution is bullshit unless their is pairty in all parts of the UK. People may have stopped talking about it but the West Lothian Question still exists. This may sound like a whingy gripe, but it is not fair.
As for the election, firstly, who else sniggers a little bit at 'hung' parliament?
Secondly, I don't believe that there can be any REAL coalition between LibDem and Con, for the reasons FawnDoo said. There's very little policy overlap so it would be a very uncomfortable relationship.
When the next election comes, which I expect will be soon, it will be when the Tories have consolidated their power, kept every thing safe and cozy, and are confident that they can win an outright majority without the need for Clegg. Unless the Liberal Democrats make serious political gains and get some kind of election reform in before then (no hope there, I fear) they will be made to suffer in the next election by those who are angry and have lost their faith in Clegg and those who move to the Tories.
And that can not be good. I can not see a good way out of this mess. LibCon will one sided and shoot down any chance for real change. LibLab is at total odds to the election results (allthough their combined share of the vote would be greater than the Tories) and a loose coalition across several small or fringe parties will fall appart like a table from IKEA made by a monkey with learning difficulties. A coalition government I don't see as workable.
Lastly, well done Caroline Lucas. Nice to see a Green MP, even if it is only the one. Anyone know what happens to her MEP seat? Presuambly she had to stand down once elected as an MP?
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: I'm sorry, but devolution is bullshit unless their is pairty in all parts of the UK. People may have stopped talking about it but the West Lothian Question still exists. This may sound like a whingy gripe, but it is not fair.
I agree that there has yet to be a good answer to the West Lothian Question and perhaps some kind of reform is needed to reach that answer, but I'm pretty sure that whatever solution might exist isn't to be found in taking swipes at Scottish Prime Ministers. Especially when you consider that of the lst two Scottish PMs one of them was elected by an English constituency.
I do have to say though, that I don't agree with the contention that a Lib-Lab coalition would be at odds with the results of the election. More people voted for a centre-left party than voted for a centre-right. I'm less than comfortable with the fact that Clegg feels he can ignore the constitutional convention that a sitting PM gets first go at forming a government in the event of a hung parliament - it's not for him to decide who to speak to first, that's not how the system has worked in the past and it's not for him to abuse his position and decide that's how it's going to work this time around.
Clegg's position on this is contradictory, to say the least - you can't spend an entire election campaign complaining that first past the post is a broken system, doesn't work, needs to be replaced blah blah blah, and then when the FPTP system returns an inconclusive verdict, suddenly claim that the Conservatives have the first right to form a government because they won most seats under FPTP! I'm fine with someone thinking a system is broken and needs replacing - I'm less fine with someone thinking that and then suddenly acting as if the system has handed them a signed note from God Almighty telling them they can run roughshod over the way things are done.
Give it 9 months to a year, and we'll be back at the polls because there is no way that the Conservatives - who enjoy support from a minority of the electorate - will endorse a change to the voting system that will put them out of power forever. If Clegg gets won over and helps the Tories into power, he and his party deserve to get ground into the dust at every election from here to doomsday and back again.
And yes, I still laugh at "hung" parliament. :-)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo:
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Well it'd make a change from all the rich Scots screwing up the country...well the part of the country that's England, while somehow giving themselves a separate government that makes Scotland a better run place to live. Odd that.
Yeah, that's what it is, a massive Scottish conspiracy to ruin England. You got us. Because it's not as if Scotland has suffered at the hands of previous governments, is it? No, all milk and honey up here. Jesus.
You know I was sort of kidding, but since you put it that way I do wonder if some Scottish MPs have been watching too many Mel Gibson films.
quote:I do have to say though, that I don't agree with the contention that a Lib-Lab coalition would be at odds with the results of the election. More people voted for a centre-left party than voted for a centre-right.
That's the thing though. While officially Labour are still lefties, in the last ten years or more they've been acting more and more like right-wingers than even the Tories, in some cases. I'm not sure the old political lines are quite as relevant as the used to be. As for the seemingly inevitable Conservative/LibDem coalition, it's far from an ideal situation, but to me it's preferable to the current alternatives and slightly more preferable that Labour staying in power. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic but with a little compromise on both sides I think the coalition might be a positive thing in the long run. Remember how when Blair first got in, it was by such a landslide that they just went ahead and did whatever they wanted, literally steam-rolling the opposition. Having to first negotiate with LibDem may temper anything that would otherwise get shoved through on the Conservative agenda.
As for the voters' attitude towards Clegg after the dust settles, I don't think it will backfire too harshly. Party loyalty isn't what it used to be and I think people are finally starting to vote a little more pragmatically rather that out of some outdated vestigial concept of class identification.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: You know I was sort of kidding, but since you put it that way I do wonder if some Scottish MPs have been watching too many Mel Gibson films.
That's Alex Salmond you're thinking of. If ever there was a man who needed his Braveheart DVD confiscated, it's Salmond. The man looks like an angry Mister Potato Head, for god's sake.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic but with a little compromise on both sides I think the coalition might be a positive thing in the long run. Remember how when Blair first got in, it was by such a landslide that they just went ahead and did whatever they wanted, literally steam-rolling the opposition. Having to first negotiate with LibDem may temper anything that would otherwise get shoved through on the Conservative agenda.
I completely agree that a party having such a huge majority as Blair did in 1997 is not healthy for parliament: too much temptation to just do whatever the hell you like with so many seats behind you. However, when it comes to the potential for a Lib-Con coalition I'm not so sure. There is no way the Tories are going to give ground on voting reform - the holy grail for the Lib Dems - and outside of a few issues there just isn't any common ground between the two parties.
What I think would happen is that the Lib Dems would very quickly find themselves to be an extremely junior partner in a coalition and they would be made to know it at every opportunity. Cameron has already gone on record saying that it was "reasonable to expect" that the bulk of the Conservative manifesto should be adopted. The two parties don't agree on Europe, voting reform, immigration, trident, the timing of cuts to reduce the deficit...in almost every major area of policy, they are either in extreme disagreement or just outright diametrically opposed. If Clegg thinks that he can act as Jiminy Cricket to Cameron's Pinocchio, then he's kidding himself, frankly.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: As for the voters' attitude towards Clegg after the dust settles, I don't think it will backfire too harshly. Party loyalty isn't what it used to be and I think people are finally starting to vote a little more pragmatically rather that out of some outdated vestigial concept of class identification.
It's not class identification I'm talking about (though I think that is a stronger motivation than you do - I wouldn't call it "vestigial"), it's where the voters lie on the political spectrum - it's a matter of ideology, not identification. If the people who voted Lib Dem wanted a Tory government, then they would have voted Tory. They had that choice, and they didn't. They voted Lib Dem because I assume they wanted to see a progressive, centre-left party gain seats and wield influence. Not to become the whipped patsy of a Tory government intent on reducing the size of the house of commons and redrawing constituency boundaries to make sure they stay in power for evermore. Clegg has run roughshod over the way things are done, and in doing so I'd be willing to bet that he's running contrary to the wishes of an awful lot of those 5 million people who voted for his party.
And if that wasn't arse-ache enough, I saw this on the BBC news site today:
quote:Similarly, Labour MP and former sports minister Kate Hoey told BBC Radio 5 live she could not see how Mr Brown could "continue as prime minister in any kind of coalition" because "he wasn't elected originally" and had now "lost over 100 MPs".
I really wish that people (not anyone here - this is a bit of a freeform rant on a general bugbear of mine) would stop going on about Gordon Brown not being elected as PM. We don't elect the PM in this country - we elect a party (well, usually anyway! ) and the leader of that party becomes PM. And this is from a former minister, on the BBC! F**k me down dead, can we not do better than this? To listen to people going on about this you would think the man had led a bloody coup d'etat.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:What I think would happen is that the Lib Dems would very quickly find themselves to be an extremely junior partner in a coalition and they would be made to know it at every opportunity. Cameron has already gone on record saying that it was "reasonable to expect" that the bulk of the Conservative manifesto should be adopted. The two parties don't agree on Europe, voting reform, immigration, trident, the timing of cuts to reduce the deficit...in almost every major area of policy, they are either in extreme disagreement or just outright diametrically opposed. If Clegg thinks that he can act as Jiminy Cricket to Cameron's Pinocchio, then he's kidding himself, frankly.
I'm not sure that he's thinking that way though. I mean if we can see that any coalition is doomed if neither side gives ground then surely they know that too and if they have any sense of pragmatism are right now hammering out an agreement so they they won't trip each other up. Manifesto promises have to go at least a little bit out the window in this instance as nobody actually won outright. Time will tell exactly what concessions each party are willing to make. You can say the LibDems won't budge on "this" or the Tories won't allow "that" but the reality is, at least in some instances they'll have to bite their respective bullets unless they want to have to do this all over again before the year is out. They both have a chance at power, each in their own measure and I can't see either of them squandering it over a few sticking points.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Manifesto promises have to go at least a little bit out the window in this instance as nobody actually won outright. Time will tell exactly what concessions each party are willing to make.
The thing is though, Cameron is already under fire from some in his party for not delivering an outright majority and a clear victory. Cameron isn't terribly well liked by some in the Conservative party, but they kept their mouths shut and let him get on with things up to now because they thought he had the election in the bag. Now that he hasn't, the backlash is already starting.
With people in his party thinking that he's a dud and not Tory enough to deliver a strong majority after 13 years of a Labour government, my worry is that he'll not listen to a coalition partner and will come on strong and hard-line to appease that section of his party. Nick Clegg might be going into this thinking "it's a bit of give and take" but if Cameron needs to keep the European-hating, kick-the-proles, buck-toothed posho element of his party happy then he'll stamp on Clegg's nuts in a heartbeat to do just that.
I think that this story shows the kind of thing Cameron has in mind for the UK as a whole, but this is the most telling part:
quote:Cameron's close friend and shadow cabinet member Ed Vaizey said Cameron is "much more Conservative than he acts, or than he is forced to be by political exigency".
Any appearance that Cameron is putting on to woo the Lib Dems is exactly that - an appearance. I am extremely dubious as to his intentions - for one thing I don't believe he is as progressive as he is trying to appear to be, and for another even if he was, I don't think the party standing behind him would allow him to be progressive in any meaningful way.
Clock is ticking though - news outlets seem to be anticipating a FTSE bloodbath if the markets open tomorrow and there is still no news, so hopefully that will get something moving.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
News outlets appeared to be wrong on the FTSE bloodbath. Of course, if a bad economy was based around people sitting around saying "if this happens, we'll have a bad economy", we'd have been screwed ever since 24-hour TV news came in.
I've had several issues with Labour, such as the privacy and human-rights violations, the corruption, and more. But I really, really can't bring myself to support a government with those sort of newspapers behind them. Daily Mirror readers are stupid, Guardian readers are smug, but that's nothing compared to the sheer angry hatred and fear that rags like the Daily Mail produce, and that's the sort of stuff that informs a Conservative government.
Steven Fry has posted a nice blog piece on this. It's a bit long, but I suspect he might be right.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: As though your conservatives are also a bunch of bible-thumping, big business loving, anti-immigration, gun loving, brainless, slack-jawed science-deniers that think the South shall rise again, men should control a woman's reproductive rights, civil rights are for those that can afford to buy them, suspects are tried in the media and a massive deficit can be solved by fabricated overseas conflicts and, of course, tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.
But I may be wrong- it could be exactly that way (in which case, God help you).
Tax-cuts for the uber-wealthy, yes. And gays shouldn't be allowed in bed & breakfasts, in case they infect the curtains or something.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
Guardian readers...smug? Really? *deletes Guardian app on iPhone*
Actually I'm reminded of "Yes, Prime Minister" and the comments made on the papers there:
quote:Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Just saw the news - Clegg apparently now wants to hold formal talks with Labour, which would indicate that the Tory talks are not going swimmingly. Even more interesting, old Gordo has said he won't serve as PM except in a transitional capacity and is asking Labour to start a leadership contest.
All of which is immediately followed up by the BBC reporter saying that people could end up with a PM they didn't vote for. And I grind another layer of enamel off my teeth as I try to resist the temptation to shout at my monitor. Aaargh.
Good to see they over-estimated the impact on the markets though. Who would have thought that the near-meltdown of Greece would overshadow our problems eh? Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Bugger - you beat me to it!
I'm kind of glad in a way the Libs are swaerving away from the Tories. It might be interesting if they decide to go it alone and leave the others to the (electorate) dogs. But I susepct that there will be a feeble alliance with Labour.
The big question is what the country will make of the new PM, who nobody will have voted for (allbeit by proxy, assuming that most people (which I suspect is the case have presided over a polling station this time round and heard all the old biddies talking to themselves) vote for parties rather than people).
Fortunately there will be an election in six months, so it won't really matter!
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
(By the way, I did word that just to see if I could hear the grinding from down here in Kent)
We don't vote in a PM, and we never will. But I do wonder how many people do vote for a party and how many vote for a candidate.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
After asking around the office and relatives of people I know, a shockingly low percentage of people realise that they vote for an MP, and not a party. Which is why Labour managed to hold their seat in Liverpool despite the candidate never having been here until a month ago and having no idea who Bill Shankly is.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
How is it even possible that your voters are less informed than the ones we have in the US?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^We've had longer to practice at being ill informed.
I happened to vote for an MP too, at least as far as I was concerned anyway. Sod the greater good of the country if it means we're going to get stuck with some useless tit as our local MP. I could give a crap what party they belonged to...within reason of course. It's not like I'd every vote for the likes of UKIP or the BNP.
This just in, the Tories are offering AV electoral reforms in lieu of PR. Sounds like a counter bid to Brown's promise to possible leave someday perhaps and I think it's a good compromise on the Conservatives' part.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: All of which is immediately followed up by the BBC reporter saying that people could end up with a PM they didn't vote for.
That does wind me up incredibly when the say that. Does no-one at the BBC understand that we live in a Parliamentary Democracy (and indeed all those in the Tory Party who have moaned on and on about Brown being unelected and will no doubt do the same with whoever his successor as Labour leader is), and we don't have a Presidental style of leadership directly elected by the electorate? Yes we'll have a PM we didn't vote for...it's just now, then, and as it has been with every election we've ever had! Personally I voted for an independent candidate for my MP...and I certainly don't recall the names Brown, Cameron or Clegg appearing on the ballot paper that was put in front of me last Thursday.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
I'm so glad that I'm not alone in finding that annoying! Like you I've never once voted for a PM - just for the local candidate. I can understand that some people might not have a grasp of how the system works, but I would expect major news outlets not to keep banging on the line about unelected PMs. It's fantastic that there have been investigations and witch-hunts about Blue Peter phone competitions but no-one is taking the BBC to task about consistently misrepresenting how our system of voting works at a time when people need to know how it works.
Another point of irritation came when the newspapers started to refer to Gordon Brown as somehow "squatting" in Number 10, as if he was unwilling to leave. After all, it's not as if the sitting PM has a *constitutional duty* to remain in office while a new government is formed, is it? In fact, he has the duty to try to form a government first - a process Clegg skipped, but now seems to be coming back to.
And for all the tantrum-throwing being indulged in by the right wing press, has no-one looked back to the last time this happened? Sitting PM whose party comes second in terms of seats...check. Remains in office following election of hung parliament despite rival party having more seats...check. Attempts to form government with Liberal party...check. Except, of course, the last time it happened the PM in question was a Tory.
It's fascinating that for all the poison being penned by the Daily Mail and for all the nasty journalism being pioneered by Kay Burley and Adam Boulton, no-one is making more of an effort to say "Hang on! This happened before! This unusual situation is not entirely without precedent! Let's look back at what happened then, and see if there are any conclusions that can be drawn as to what will happen now." Why is that? Because the press know that it would undercut the basis for their rage and invective against Gordon Brown.
Talking of tantrums, did anyone else see Adam Boulton lose it when talking to Alastair Campbell? Poor journalism, but cracking telly. Never thought I'd see the day when Campbell was thought to be the reasonable one. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It's on Youtube, and it's awesome.
I did see someone mention yesterday (for possibly the first time) that no-one "voted" for John Major either, yet the Tories and Tory papers don't seem to be mentioning that.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
Not only did he have a go at Alastair Campbell, seems he also had a bit of a run-in with Ben Bradshaw as well. Has no-one at Sky News maybe thought that Boulton isn't exactly upholding the highest of standards when it comes to professionalism? That he might be...oh, I don't know, just a bit too quick to go huffy and angry?*
The Tory press isn't exactly covering itself with glory, but a gold star for the high-water mark of low standards (if you'll forgive me for such an awkward turn of phrase) surely has to go to the Sun, which had some interesting differences between the Scottish and English versions of their editorial.
* That's code for "completely mental" btw.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: Another point of irritation came when the newspapers started to refer to Gordon Brown as somehow "squatting" in Number 10, as if he was unwilling to leave.
That really got me annoyed, partially because I minored in politics at university and as such know how the system works...and apparantly know it far better than anyone at the BBC. By that very arguement, was Ted Heath squatting in 1974 before he resigned? Or maybe the arguement doesn't apply when it's a Tory leader in Number 10. Same is true about the whole "unelected PM" thing upon a change of leader. Naturally leaving aside what has been said about how the PM isn't elected, should John Major have called an election in 1992? What about Jim Callagham in 1976? Or even, shock horror, Winston Churchill in 1940? 'Cause, you know, none of them were party leader during the general election prior to their assumption of the post of Prime Minister. Like him or not, Gordon Brown has ironically done exactly what the precedent and procedure has suggested he do...when there's no clear leader, the incumbent has the right to have a go before anyone else. But what does it matter now that he's resigned as Prime Minister...
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
It's all over for Brown. He's gone! He's visited the Palace, he's quit the party leadership.
Dave's seen the queen.
However nobody has said if we actually have a government or not yet.
But at least all the bitching about an elected PM will stop now.
EDIT: Brilliant news: Cameron has ousted Eastenders! Apparently a new PM is more important than the goings on of Wallford. Whoda thunk it?
I feel I should point out strongly that I am not cheering for Cameron, but rather happy that Gordon Brown has left (and conducted himself in a surprisingly un-Blairy way).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Not only did he have a go at Alastair Campbell, seems he also had a bit of a run-in with Ben Bradshaw as well.
Not that I wish to defend journalistic unprofessionalism, but Alastair Campbell is in all fairness a gigantic git who was being intentionally provocative and makes a habit of blaming everything from his uneven driveway to the black death on Sky and the BBC's reporting methods. So I can't say I blame Boulton from resisting the urge to nut the bastard and settling for shouting in his face on live TV. The bugger of it was that it seems to be exactly what Campbell wanted. Not that it matters now, the smug git is out along with the rest of his party and are safe to lick their wounds where they can blame every little thing that goes wrong on the coalition and bet their hopes on getting voted back in next time by a drastic increase in the alzheimer's population.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: ...Alastair Campbell is in all fairness a gigantic git who was being intentionally provocative and makes a habit of blaming everything from his uneven driveway to the black death on Sky and the BBC's reporting methods.
Oh well that's fine then, if I'm in an argument with someone and decide I want to start to shout in their face and start waving my arms about, I can just put it down to them being a git, can I? There's no chance that could backfire on me when someone points out that in fact it's me who is the git, is there? No?
And here was me thinking that Campbell was being quite reasonable in the exchange - he was trying to answer the question put to him, made a comment about what he thought Boulton thought, and then when Boulton went off like a firework Campbell tried to calm the man down because he was embarassing himself on live television. Now granted, he maybe shouldn't have tried to put words in Boulton's mouth by saying what he was thinking, but all Boulton had to do was say "I don't think that" and come back with something reasonable. What he did was to flare up (no pun intended) and act like an arsehole by raising his voice and adopting quite an aggressive physical stance. No need. If you want to fill some air time with a fat guy who has a bit of an odd look and some anger management issues then get Nick Griffin in, that's what he's good at.
Bugger me though, that all happened fast! One out, one in, with the residents of Walford Square being classed as collateral damage. Thought Gordon Brown's exit speech was very dignified - struck the right note and off he went with his family. Presumably to sleep through to next Wednesday! Cameron's speech hit the expected notes though I'll be interested to see how his relationship with Nick Clegg develops. I anticipate something along the lines of "Two sugars Nick, there's a good lad." but time will tell.
Still can't see how a Con/Dem coalition will work though. If they offer a referendum on the AV system, are they really expecting it to look credible when the PM stands up to the country and says "Don't vote for this! Boo!" and the Deputy PM stands up and says "Vote for this! Woohoo!" about the same issue? What about by-elections, will the coalition partners contest the same seats? What about when Cameron's right starts to rebel against being pulled to the centre, and Clegg's left starts to do the same? And what about the next election, when Clegg turns to the electorate and says "Vote Lib Dem" when 5 million people will be able to say "Well we did that, mate, and we got Tory, so why should we?". Interesting and worrying times ahead but I gleefully anticipate a proper Lib Dem kicking at the next election.
Of course, I might be biased. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
^Just a tad mate! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: All of which is immediately followed up by the BBC reporter saying that people could end up with a PM they didn't vote for.
You have an activist Supreme Court too?
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: You have an activist Supreme Court too?
What we have is an awful lot of people who either seem to think they live in America, have watched too much "West Wing" DVDs, or both. And a mass media that seems to agree with them.
I thought that the press conference with Eric and Ernie - sorry, David and Nick - was laying it on a bit thick. They did everything but snog the faces off of one another like teenagers at a school disco who have downed too much cheap cider. Have some dignity, lads - or at least rent a cheap hotel room, knock a few stiff drinks back, get freaky and then it's out of your system once and for all. If anyone catches them at it, they can just claim that two lesbians on a ship several universes away temporarily took over their bodies. We could corroborate that, right? Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Still a more viable explanation than "I was hiking the Apalachian Trail" while really skipping off to south america to shag the mistress.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Is ANYONE going to vote for the Lib Dems at the next election? If they don't get electoral reform passed, Clegg has essentially ruined any chance they've got at being elected for the next 30 years for one or two years at being first officer.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I suppose it depends on what goes down over the next few years. I'm sure what they're hoping for is to take as many seats from Labour as possible the next time round, or the proposed House of Lords reforms could get them a strong foothold in the second chamber. So long as they're daydreaming...
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
Two weeks into the government, it's really impossible to make an informed judgement. While my initial thoughts are that the Lib Dems sold out their voters (after all, no-one who voted Lib Dem would have particularly wanted a Tory government), you could argue that needs must when the devil fails to turn out to vote. A lot could happen over the next few years, so we'll see what happens...I wouldn't be surprised to see a change of leadership with both the Lib Dems and the Tories before the next election, so it's hard to say what the outcome could be.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Anyone been watching Have I Got News For You recently? Is it me, or is Ian Hislop doing a very poor job of appearing unbiased?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Your political system is very confusing- I suggest you adopt the non-partisan syatem we use in the States.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yeah, because the US is a paradigm of political stability and as we are we must have a civil war every two or three hundred years, it's crazy!
Anyway, our political system is very easy to understand, just ask Sir Humphry.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Whenever I think of "Humphry", I think of Mr. Humphries from Are You Being Served?
Really, a government run by him would be pretty funny...I'd vote for him.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)