Pass the crisps: UK Election watch
497 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
And am I the only person who would like The Herald to stop running op-eds lifted off the wires as news?
I'd call it lazy journalism, but that would be overstating it. The journalism bit, I mean.
-
I spot from Idiot Savant over at NRT that Labour has summarily dismissed an offer of support from the SNP. I/S calls this stupid, but Scotland has become the ultimate Labour fortress, Labour routed the SNP this time round and I can see why they wouldn't want to offer any credibility to an opponent they've got on the ropes.
Still, that would seem to dissolve any hope of a "keep the bastards out" coalition of everyone vs. the Tories. Therefore I can't see Labour even being theoretically able to form a government, which is probably fair enough. Brown appears widely disliked (although I think this is overstated by the chattering classes. Brown still seems popular with working class families, a group that has done well under Labour) and whatever way you dice it, Labour got rejected.
The Lib-Dems should stay out of coalition and simply promise the Tories supply and confidence on condition of electoral reform. All other legislation - from any party - will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
-
Still, that would seem to dissolve any hope of a "keep the bastards out" coalition of everyone vs. the Tories. Therefore I can't see Labour even being theoretically able to form a government, which is probably fair enough.
I feel kind of ill saying this, but if Cameron can't stitch up a workable deal with the Lib-Dems (with or without Ireland's 8 Democratic Unionists) it's not theoretically impossible that Brown could "brazen out" a minority government, with a never ending round of negotiations with all the other parties that don't already formally take the Labour whip (that would be the SDLP & independent Sylvia Hermon) He'd also be a damn sight more secure if he could convince the Sinn Fein caucus to take their seats in a legislature whose legitimacy they don't recognise, and form a coalition with Labour.
Labour routed the SNP this time round and I can see why they wouldn't want to offer any credibility to an opponent they've got on the ropes.
In the BBC story I/S linked to Nick Robinson disposed of the "financial and political concessions" the SNP and PC would "of course" demand in a parenthesis. Well, I wonder if they were like the exemption from any austerity measures the Democratic Unionists were demanding for Northern Island as the price for a coalition with the Tories just before the election? A credibility shredding dead rat the Conservatives couldn't swallow; don't see how Labour could be any different,
The Lib-Dems should stay out of coalition and simply promise the Tories supply and confidence on condition of electoral reform. All other legislation - from any party - will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
OMFG! I'm agreeing with Tom, can the Apocalypse be far behind! :)
As I said, if I was Cameron I'd say "Have your referrendum, but as leader of the Conservative Party I reserve the right to go out and campaign for a "no" vote -- in accordance with our long-standing policy." Can't say fairer than that, can you?
-
From UK C4's snowmail e-mail this morning:
Gordon Brown is under some pressure from people in his own party wanting him to quit as Labour leader so they can start putting an alternative bid to the Lib Dems before Nick Clegg signs on the dotted line with David Cameron. The process this would involve is so convoluted as to make it almost certainly impossible - but the theory goes that Gordon Brown resigns as Labour leader but not as prime minister, while Harriet Harman as caretaker leader negotiates with Nick Clegg. This would be on the basis that David Miliband will stand unopposed by any serious candidate as new Labour leader, so that the Lib Dems know exactly who they would go into government with eventually.
Once the deal is done Gordon Brown goes to the palace and advises the Queen that the caretaker Harriet Harman can form a government with the Lib Dems, then once Labour has its new leader in place she goes to the palace and advises the Queen that Miliband will be taking over as prime minister. As I write this it sounds either so mad as to be unworkable, or so intricately thought through as to be plausible. It also requires Ed Balls and Ed Miliband to give up their hopes of Labour leadership.
Does anyone else's head hurt?
-
Does anyone else's head hurt?
Yes, and so does my stomach because I'm going to stand up for Gordon Brown. Like it or not, Labour went into the general election -- and secured 8.6 million votes -- with the incumbent Prime Minister top of the bill. Those 8.6 million didn't vote for Harriet Harman (or Ed Balls or Ed Miliband), and such a move is just gagging for people to ask when Labour next plans to have a Prime Minister who has been elected by the people rather than selected by a feral caucus.
As they say in Texas, you dance with the one who brought you -- even if he steps on your toes. :)
-
Can't say fairer than that, can you?
Perhaps not, but as you yourself pointed out, when you have someone by the balls, giving a light tickle and letting go is perhaps a little over-generous.
This whole situation has reminded me of the e-mail that did the rounds after the 2000 presidential election in the US and the whole Florida shemozzle: "Dear USA, as you've shown you can't govern yourselves, we're taking the colonies back. Much love, the UK"
Something along those lines.
Looks like those who laugh last, laugh longest.
-
Like it or not, Labour went into the general election -- and secured 8.6 million votes -- with the incumbent Prime Minister top of the bill. Those 8.6 million didn't vote for Harriet Harman (or Ed Balls or Ed Miliband),
Did they switch to Presidential elections without telling anybody? You could equally say that the only people who voted for Gordon Brown are the people who voted for Gordon Brown in his electorate. And you simply don't know how many people would have voted for Labour if somebody else had been the putative Prime Minister.
Really, what is with lacking a basic grasp of the electoral system in this discussion?
-
Really, what is with lacking a basic grasp of the electoral system in this discussion?
You're on your man-splaining second strike there, Gio. I'm not Gordon Brown's biggest fan, but it is a simple matter of fact that Labour went into the general election with Brown -- who happens to be the incumbent Prime Minister -- as leader. Hey, if Labour believes an auto-decapitation strategy is going to make them more palatable to Clegg and his party I believe it's legal and even constitutional. But it sure strikes me as a politically and strategically retarded act of desperation that Clegg wouldn't want to touch with a barge pole.
And FFS, how epic a #desperatecaucusdisciplinefail it is that anyone in Labour is briefing against their own bloody leader? At least Cameron has got the haters in his own party biting their tongues, for now.
-
putative Prime Minister.
This lead me here; Anyone but Cameron.
"But there's nothing 'new' about breaking your promises to the British public. It's classic Labour." Thus declared our putative prime minister: "And it is the cancer that is eating away at trust in politics. Small wonder that so many people don't believe a word politicians ever say if they break their promises so casually."
This was pre election, and goes on to slam Cameron for back peddling on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Anyway, as one who probably lacks the grasp Gio is referring to, this thread has taught me stuff about the Westminster Electoral system that I don't recall learning in my whole Pol Sci Degree.
Basically, it seems to pretty much suck. Quote unquote.
-
Looks like it won't be long:
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has given himself until the end of tomorrow to decide whether to let David Cameron form a government, or instead risk a deal with Labour that might be seen as illegitimate by the public and jeopardise the success of a yes vote in a referendum on electoral reform.
Clegg met Gordon Brown for an hour at the Foreign Office today and is understood to have set out his fear that a Lib-Lab coalition might be regarded as illegitimate even if Brown stood down as its leader.
-
Doesn't a twister mat have red, blue and yellow dots?
Get the three leaders to play a game. Last man left 'standing' gets to form the government.
-
Cameron isn't going to offer a PR referendum. Clegg should play hard-line. It's the best chance his party will ever have. Make the deal with Labour, get the referendum. Or go back to the polls. Being bullied into a powerless position in a coalition would be a waste of every card they have.
-
And while it's entirely predictable coming from The Guardian, I really have a doozy for the "what the fuck were you expecting?" file:
Angry Conservatives are telling the party's leadership that David Cameron must break up his "chums circle" running the party and bring on board veterans who were largely excluded from the election campaign.
Amid mounting recriminations over Cameron's failure to secure an overall parliamentary majority, Tory anger is focused on the tight circle that ran the campaign and the relatively inexperienced shadow ministers who sold the Tory message on television.
Perhaps I'm rather naive, but it might have helped if most of those "veterans" had at least tried to hide their utter contempt for Cameron's attempt to drag the Conservatives out of the hole they'd dug. (And to be blunt, picking up almost a hundred seats is more than they ever achieved with incoherent hard-right policies and loose cannons going off in public on a daily basis.) If you define insanity as "doing the same old shit and expecting a different result" these people are due for a long holiday at Club Med Bedlam.
-
I found this rather funny. On the BBC main website, the only mention of the election seems to be in the right hand column where it says;
Video: Election night highs and lows
Move along please, nothing to see here...
-
I hope Clegg can see that the public "losing patience with him" is of no real concern at all. Those members of the public already didn't vote for him. If they want him to just shut up and roll over and give the Tories the keys to power with no concessions whatsoever, then they can just bloody lose patience.
-
Like all good and wise PA/Guardianistas, I hoped for a Lab/Lib-Dem deal, leading to PR. But it ain't gonna happen.
A leaked memo:
"So here's the plan. First we're going to patch up a deal that reinforces every John Bull prejudice about how coalitions work for those shifty continentals who use PR. We're going to appoint a new PM, either by a palace coup, or by spending weeks on an internal Labour party leadership contest. We're going to buy off a few Celts, with a bridge to nowhere or whatever we can rustle up from the pork farm. We're going to hope and pray that we can keep this show on the road for at least a couple of years, while we get the new PR system organised and prepare for the referendum. We're going to whip every last FPP-supporting dinosaur into voting for that referendum, with No MP Left Behind. Labour Ministers who have decades of on-the-record speeches about their undying love for FPP, will have to hope nobody noticed.
And then, on Referendum Day, the public are going to vote for PR.
What could possibly go wrong?" [/memo]
In New Zealand, we voted for MMP because people were pissed off with what successive "strong" single party governments had done, without a mandate. In Britain, by the time people get to vote, the opposite will apply. That's if the anti-Tory government has survived at all.
It's desperately sad for the Lib Dems and all who support electoral reform, but the numbers aren't there, and wishing won't make it so.
They'll take what they can from the Tories, plummet in the polls, have all kinds of internal ructions, and just have to hope that Labour in opposition commit to PR (not just a deathbed conversion) and the battle is won another day.
-
Cameron isn't going to offer a PR referendum. Clegg should play hard-line. It's the best chance his party will ever have. Make the deal with Labour, get the referendum.
A referendum on what, exactly? Serious question -- and one I've not actually seen a straight answer to from Labour.
In a weird way, I find something irresistibly tragi-comic about the "damned no matter what you do" political Sudouku all three of them are trying to in their heads right now. No matter what happens, Clegg, Cameron and Brown are going to have to piss off a lot of people not in a forgiving mood.
-
They'll take what they can from the Tories, plummet in the polls, have all kinds of internal ructions, and just have to hope that Labour in opposition commit to PR (not just a deathbed conversion) and the battle is won another day.
I don't think they're in that weak a position. They could let the Tories run a minority government, and limp along getting nothing done until the public get sick of them. It could be another election very soon. Their ability to avoid plummeting in the polls would very much come down to showing that the Tories did absolutely nothing whatsoever to earn a coalition. Which is true.
-
A referendum on what, exactly? Serious question -- and one I've not actually seen a straight answer to from Labour.
On changing the political system. They should pin Labour to actually committing to holding a referendum, not something weak like "having an inquiry into it".
-
I hope Clegg can see that the public "losing patience with him" is of no real concern at all. Those members of the public already didn't vote for him. If they want him to just shut up and roll over and give the Tories the keys to power with no concessions whatsoever, then they can just bloody lose patience.
The mediaocracy have their narrative, and they get upset when parties stray from them.
I've been surprised at how immature and one dimensional even the so-called 'serious' British media have been in their coverage and explanation of the election and its results. No wonder the poor British public are confused.
-
On changing the political system. They should pin Labour to actually committing to holding a referendum
Kind of dodged my question there, Ben -- mostly because I suspect there's no answer. What precisely would (or wouldn't) Labour commit to when it comes to "changing the political system" (whatever that means)?
All I'm saying is that I don't think the political calculus on Labour's side is quite as simple as you're painting -- and unless Clegg is not as smart as he looks, he knows it.
-
I think Labour's position is AV (not PR), while the Lib Dems want AV plus (= PR).
It's a crucial difference, but (if in opposition) the Tories will invoke Nero and violins.
-
Craig, Proportional Representation. Of whatever kind LibDem have been trying to get for-ever. What are you asking me? What kind of system I would like to have there?
-
Since we are touching on Electoral Reform, can the Mansplainers in the house explain again why MMP is better than the Australian system? i.e. Preferential Voting.
I understand it doesn't represent minority interests in the way MMP does, but it has other appeals. For instance it would seem less likely to get the Winston Peters and Rodney Hides of this world, or in the UK the BNP nutters.
Of course we have to get past the vision of PV that it is a bit like 'pin the tail on the donkey'.
Did I just answer my own question? Always liked that game...
-
If you don't want to represent minority interests, stick with FPP. If you do want to represent minority interests then you need to do so - even the interests of those minorities you don't like.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.