Pass the crisps: UK Election watch
497 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 20 Newer→ Last
-
The Telegraph is editorially beside itself:
England voted decisively for the Tories last Thursday (297 seats to Labour’s 191), yet is to be effectively disenfranchised by the Brown/Clegg stitch-up. Does Mr Brown realise how dangerous a game he is playing? ...
Mr Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. They are, in effect, holding the country to ransom in pursuit of a new voting system. An issue that featured nowhere on the list of voter priorities in the general election now dominates the political debate. And the tail is wagging the dog. Last Thursday, the two parties that were formally opposed to PR, the Tories and Labour, between them polled 19 million votes. The party that supports PR polled fewer than seven million votes ...
Since last Friday we have lived with the fiction that Mr Brown was simply doing his constitutional duty by staying at the helm until a new government could be formed, acting in the national interest. Now we see that all the time he has been acting in his and his party’s interest, defying the verdict of the electorate by trying to create a coalition of the election losers. This is a bleak day for our democracy.
The writer should be wary of moral arguments, and especially of waving around the popular vote figures.
-
The writer should be wary of moral arguments, and especially of waving around the popular vote figures.
I think you've got a fair point there -- and one that would equally apply to PR advocates, come to that. One of my bugbears, too, is the slack use of "disenfranchised" as a fifty cent synonym for "any political outcome I don't happen to like". The simple constitutional reality is that you have the confidence of 50% of the House plus one, you have a government and the politics attends to itself.
Having said that, if the report I've read is accurate (and I won't assume it is) a small courtesy would have been for Cameron and William Hague to get a heads-up that the Lib-Dems were formally negotiating with Labour before journalists rang them for comment. Ouch...
-
This is a bleak day for our democracy.
Oh, shut up, you pretentious windbag tool.
And Gwynne Dyer in The Herald asks a not unreasonable question: Why would you want to win this election?
-
And after reading this, I think the Torygraph & Guarniad should invest in a joint work outing to a day-spa:
But if it works, it would be a remarkable blow to a Tory party determined to waltz into Downing Street on less than a quarter of the vote, dragging a captive Liberal Democrat party behind it – without even agreeing to offer the voters a say on whether or not they want a change to the electoral system.
Seumas Milne: #mathfail (36.46% is more than a quarter) plus flat out untruth = why aren't you working for the Daily Mail?
-
And Gwynne Dyer in The Herald asks a not unreasonable question: Why would you want to win this election?
Why would you want to work for The Herald? OK, I know it's a unfashionably good natured view of politics, but perhaps both Labour and the Conservatives want to win because they really believe they're going to do some good?
-
I love Morgue's take on this. It is too good not to reproduce IN FULL.
Clegg’s Choice as Fighting Fantasy
Finally! After so many battles you have reached the final chamber. Here, your quest will end. Wiping off the last of the Bloodbeast’s ichor from your tunic, you climb the stairs and open the door.
Inside there are two foul monsters. They are both grossly obese, and stand glaring at each other. Between them is a comfortable settee, and they clearly both wish to sit down in it, but they are too large to share.
“Ah!” cry the monsters in unison. “You are here, puny human. Now, you must choose. Which of us will you join on the settee?”
The first monster, stinking and covered with scuttling vermin, grins to show unbrushed teeth. “If you choose me, I’ll roll all over you until you’re good and filthy, and then I’ll gnaw on you a bit, and then I’ll crush you underneath me until you almost drown in my juices.”
“But I’ll also order that a new settee be made, and once it is ready, you’ll have your own place to sit ever after.”
The second monster, with lifeless shark’s eyes and rows of thin teeth, spread its arms. “If you choose me, I’ll shuffle over to give you as much room on the settee as possible. Not only that, I’ll let you use the remote control at least once a day.”
“Of course, next week I’ll bite your head off and swallow it whole.”
Your entire adventure comes down to this fateful choice! What will you do?
If you attack the stinking monster, turn to 275
If you attack the shark’s eyes monster, turn to 360 -
Am I the only one who hasn't been able to get the Strangler's "Golden Brown" out of their head throughout the election process...
"never a frown with Gordon Brown"
it's so inappropriate for the grumpy-faced Brown but you have to admit it's catchy!l
Gordon brown finer temptress... now seems appropriate though (ick)
-
Heh... could have done without flashback to tragic youth, though.
-
you were tempted by Gordon Brown?
-
I've been playing with Brownian motion recently. It's been interesting. I discovered that in a chamber filled only with hot air, a large particle will slow down to a standstill quite rapidly due to the bombardment from the excited molecules. A smaller particle will bounce around seemingly at random. Something about this seems relevant.
-
I'm drinking from a firehose trying to pick #ge2010 media moments for this week's Media7 Newsmash.
Here's the business end of the confrontation between Sky News's Adam Boulton and Alastair Campbell.
Can't bear Campbell, but he won that one at a canter.
-
Wow -- another Sky News reporter loses the plot. Kay Burley harangues a mild-mannered electoral reform advocate:
Are they serving methamphetamine in the staff canteen?
-
LOL that's really, really funny, Russell. How to interview someone and not let them say anything . I was amazed at the guy's patience, actually. I'd have snapped 3 minutes earlier.
-
Can't bear Campbell, but he won that one at a canter.
When you make a human snail trail like Campbell look like the sane one in the room, you've screwed the proverbial pooch.
And could I nominate someone else for the rather crowded media naughty step? I generally read Polly Toynbee for entertainment rather than insight, but her platitudinous scolding of Clegg for even talking to the evil Tories is not only tired, but another outburst from a (to coin a phrase) "born to rule prick" pundit who just hasn't got what really happened.
I'm also going to get on a plane and punch in the face the next commentator who craps on about their preference being the only "legitimate" option. Was it T.S. Eliot who said man cannot bear too much reality -- he'd be right at home editing a broadsheet op-ed page this week.
-
Why would you want to win this election?
Why would you want to work for The Herald?
Wait, I know this one. The answer to both questions is: certainly the game is rigged, but it's the only game in town.
What do I win?
OK, I know it's a unfashionably good natured view of politics, but perhaps both Labour and the Conservatives want to win because they really believe they're going to do some good?
I don't doubt that that's at least part of why they're playing. However, it's not unreasonable to suggest and discuss that they may both be better off playing a longer game at this point.
-
Anyone got any other nomination for a post-election Punditry swear jar?
My Bottom Five (in no particular order):
"Legitimate."
"Positive and constructive."
"The markets."
"Hung" (unless there's full frontal nudity involved)
"The people spoke, and we don't know what they said" (no, you're not listening, you tin-eared bint). -
And could I nominate someone else for the rather crowded media naughty step? I generally read Polly Toynbee for entertainment rather than insight, but her platitudinous scolding of Clegg for even talking to the evil Tories is not only tired, but another outburst from a (to coin a phrase) "born to rule prick" pundit who just hasn't got what really happened.
And yet to me this appears to be spot on:
The Lib Dem leadership must not be spooked by an inauthentic view of legitimacy. Nick Clegg knows full well from his European experience – where coalition-building of every kind is the everyday norm – that legitimacy falls on whatever grouping can command enough votes in a parliament to form a government. That is often not the party that happens on its own to have more seats than any other, while still failing to represent the majority sentiment in a country. After all these years of advocating pluralism, the Lib Dems will surely not be trapped by old first-past-the-post thinking that "strong and stable government" must be the least plural.
True legitimacy resides in a coalition of principle between the parties that stood for election on the most closely shared values. Their voters are the ones that confer legitimacy.
The communist party had the relative majority in Italy a few times, but never got close to forming a government, simply because there was never anybody else they could form alliances with. If the Tories are similarly reviled by the voters of other parties, then tough on them.
That said, I'd hate to be Clegg right now. He's not going to do well whichever way he goes - and I do agree that a confidence and supply sort of deal with the Tories might well be the least politically damaging route. But it doesn't invalidate the general validity of Toynbee's point.
-
"Amicable Discussions."
"Democracy."
"Gordon Brown." -
So, arguably the most important and radical electoral reform since women's suffrage would be rammed through the House by a government with a wafer-thin majority (however you slice the Parliamentary cake) without a referendum?
The 1928 act giving women the vote was not put to a referendum. To my mind arguing that a change to the electoral system requires a referendum confuses mechanism with agency; PR is merely a different method of electing your house of representatives, it is not a panacea change agent for people unhappy with the status quo - that properly is the job of those elected to the parliament. It seems to me many Lib-Dems are repeating the wild utopian expectations of the pro-MMP campaign here, as if changing from a grandfather clock to a digital watch will somehow change the way we tell the time. MMP/PR is a just tool that ensures a more representative parliament, nothing more and nothing less.
-
But it doesn't invalidate the general validity of Toynbee's point.
Well, I'm just getting rather impatient with the opportunistic conflation of "legitimacy" with "my preference" by commentators all over the show. Toynbee is entitled to be a Labour partisan, but I do wish she'd at least acknowledge that there are plenty of Liberal Democrats who are deeply ambivalent about flinging themselves into Labour's arms, and with pretty good reason. As I said, I think there's still a hell of a lot of born to rule prickery on display from both Tory and Labour partisans. But, to be fair, it wasn't that different around here, was it?
-
Well, I'm just getting rather impatient with the opportunistic conflation of "legitimacy" with "my preference" by commentators all over the show. Toynbee is entitled to be a Labour partisan, but I do wish she'd at least acknowledge that there are plenty of Liberal Democrats who are deeply ambivalent about flinging themselves into Labour's arms, and with pretty good reason.
And you're entitled to be a Tory partisan, but it would be equally nice of you to acknowledge that Lib-Dem voters generally lean a lot more towards Labour than the Convervatives, as per a number of polls. In that sense her analysis seems at least to be borne out by reality.
But hey, I know a number of Green voters who aren't happy that their party made a deal with National, yet it still was the politically smart thing to do.
-
Tom:
You're absolutely right on the point of fact, and as for the rest of the argument we're not that far apart (you have to stop doing that - we haven't had a lung-busting row for ages.)
But I'd still argue that here in New Zealand, we went the right way about brining in MMP. It took a long time, wasn't pretty and came damn close to falling over but it's impossible to say with any seriousness everyone (and not just the legislature) didn't have a real voice in the process. It just seems crazy to me that Clegg would buy into AV(+) being brought in without a referendum, especially if any legislation would probably be passed along party lines by a government with a very slender majority.
-
That said, I'd hate to be Clegg right now. He's not going to do well whichever way he goes - and I do agree that a confidence and supply sort of deal with the Tories might well be the least politically damaging route.
See, I can't buy any of this talk of political damage to the LibDems for doing exactly what it is that they've always wanted to do. As I see it, if they don't milk it for all it's worth, it's because they choked . To fall into line because otherwise it might upset all the people who didn't vote LibDem would be the weakest most pathetic thing I'd ever heard of a politician doing after being handed the reward of decades worth of political effort.
Doing that would kill the LibDem party more surely than any other path. What reason would there be to vote for it again, if the leadership made it abundantly clear that the one time they get a hung parliament and hold the balance of power, all they do is get spooked and hand the Tories the bloody keys to office without concessions?
Now is the time for them to harden the fuck up and tell the British people that the views of their particular quarter of the population deserve to be heard. And the message they want heard is that they want representation. It's a pretty fucken important message. It should be pushed in the strongest possible terms.
-
And you're entitled to be a Tory partisan, but it would be equally nice of you to acknowledge that Lib-Dem voters generally lean a lot more towards Labour than the Convervatives, as per a number of polls.
Deep breath, and you haven't quite hit you man-splaining third strike. If I thought Polly was doing a Coulter (i.e. citing sources then just making shit) I'd have called her on it. But pardon me for having ample reason to believe opinion polls can be massaged, spun or outright bent to prove any damn thing you want. I've seen a number of polls suggesting Lib Dems are remarkably chilled out about serious talks with the Tories, and wouldn't regard a loose coalition as the end of the world, but that doesn't settle a damn thing either way - does it?
Clegg certainly seems to have a better ear for what the voters were saying than the Torygraph-Guarniad Axis of (Over-)Excitable.
-
Deep breath, and you haven't quite hit you man-splaining third strike.
I do wonder if you could try blowing slightly less hard sometimes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.