posted
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In other words, different cast, same characters? I think that defines politics in any country.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
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
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.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
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.
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
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".
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
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?
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
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. :-)
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
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.
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.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
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.
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.
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
