Brown to Resign [Archive] - hibs.net Messageboard

Mibbes Aye

10-05-2010, 04:44 PM

Lib Dems now in talks with Labour. Looks like Gordon falling on his sword might be the price for a Lib-Lab deal:confused:

It would be almost certain (though it will be a delayed fall, if it happens :greengrin)

The Tories will have a good line of attack on any 'traffic light' alliance, given they are the biggest single party, and given that Brown was unable to maintain a majority when he faced the electorate as PM. A pact with Brown exiting as leader does lessen their capacity to portray it as "Labour clinging on" and allows the partners to more plausibly portray it as a progressive alliance.

For the Lib Dems, I suspect Brown's departure wouldn't just be about that legitimacy however. Because of his role at the heart of creating New Labour and essentially running the nation's domestic policy up until he became PM, and then serving as PM during the near-global meltdown, he simply is too big to remain in office. He overshadows everyone else, in his own party and certainly the LDs. IMO he is easily the best-equipped of the three leaders to run the country but he would dominate the scene (and the attacks on his legitimacy would dominate the scene) in a way which would detract from what's actually going on - potentially a historic alliance of left and centre that would deliver electoral reform.

H18sry

10-05-2010, 04:46 PM

Stand by for another election in October then

--------

10-05-2010, 04:50 PM

If as Brown say's he hopes a new leader will be in place by September, and a Lab/Lib Dem alliance is formed who would be the interim PM ? Brown :confused:

[/URL][URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm)

He IS the Prime Minster right now.

IMO he's done the right thing here - announced that he'll resign as soon as a new Labour Party leader is elected, but prepared to continue in the interim to act as PM and provide stability for the country and the government.

Alistair Darling was on the radio this morning in regard to a meeting in Brussels relating to the Euro and whether Britain was prepared to underwrite it. He was asked why he had gone in view of his party's defeat in the election, and he pointed out that if he hadn't gone, the UK would have been entirely unrepresented and would probably have been committed to stuff that we wouldn't want to be committed to. Right now he's the Chancellor, and the financial buck stops with him. Similarly, Brown is still PM and will act as such until the political situation is settled and a new PM is chosen.

Beefster

10-05-2010, 04:56 PM

Hibbyradge

10-05-2010, 05:14 PM

Whatever way the Lib Dems go, they've made a massive balls up of it and will look shifty as **** to Middle England.

Another election within 18 months with either of Labour or the Tories increasing their seats substantially and the Lib Dems losing more seats than anyone would have believed possible three weeks ago.

If a Rainbow Alliance can be formed, their mission will be to change the electoral system.

If that happens, the Liberals will be in a better position than ever.

TariqE

10-05-2010, 05:16 PM

If they (Labour, Lib-Dems & nationalists) manage to pull this off and form a majority government, I think that it could well be the beginning of a true and well-supported nationalist movement in England.

If the SNP had almost 40% of the vote (as well as being able to count on the additional 5% from other pro-independence parties) and a clear majority of MPs in Scotland, then they would be pushing hard to get their independence referendum.

That's the state of the Tories in England and should this 'Traffic Light' coalition go ahead there may well be many voters in England feeling very bitter towards Scotland, Wales & NI.

Whaddya think- The United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland? Couldn't possibly see Wales or NI (or even Scotland really) going for that.....

hibsbollah

10-05-2010, 05:27 PM

Certainly looks like it. The thing is - warts and all - he was the only one of the three that I liked. If they put one of the Millibands in, I will become completely disengaged.

They'll be the Blairite (Blair-right:greengrin) candidates. Alan Milburn and Ed Balls will be potentially more left-wing candidates...

Hibbyradge

10-05-2010, 05:35 PM

They'll be the Blairite (Blair-right:greengrin) candidates. Alan Milburn and Ed Balls will be potentially more left-wing candidates...

Alan Milburn would be a more "left-field" candidate. :wink:

Mibbes Aye

10-05-2010, 05:37 PM

They'll be the Blairite (Blair-right:greengrin) candidates. Alan Milburn and Ed Balls will be potentially more left-wing candidates...

Would think Balls is likely to stand, as things are. Milburn stood down as an MP at this election though. Perhaps more importantly, there's a lot of anger and resentment at the likes of him, Byers, Clarke etc for their rancorous and ongoing sniping at Brown. He would have struggled in a leadership bid IMO.

AgentDaleCooper

10-05-2010, 05:41 PM

If a Rainbow Alliance can be formed, their mission will be to change the electoral system.

If that happens, the Liberals will be in a better position than ever.

yip - they'll batter through a load of electoral reforms then probably call an election.

if they were to do this and they vote shares remained the same as they were last week, they'd be able to form a majority coalition. sounds good to me :agree:

LiverpoolHibs

10-05-2010, 05:43 PM

They'll be the Blairite (Blair-right:greengrin) candidates. Alan Milburn and Ed Balls will be potentially more left-wing candidates...

Alan Milburn left-wing?! Plus, he isn't even an M.P. anymore.

John Cruddas (backed by Compass) and John McDonnell (backed by the LRC) will be the left candidates I'd imagine.

lapsedhibee

10-05-2010, 05:52 PM

Alan Milburn would be a more "left-field" candidate. :wink:Is there still time for Jim Gannon to throw his hat into the ring? I don't think the bookies would see that coming.

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 06:02 PM

Another election within 18 months with either of Labour or the Tories increasing their seats substantially and the Lib Dems losing more seats than anyone would have believed possible three weeks ago.Whatever deal the Beige Opportunists manage to cobble together with either Party now, they are stuffed - finally revealed as a Party of little principle and interchangeable policies who will effectively drop their kecks for the Party - any Party - who offers to buy them the biggest drink.

Why this comes as any surprise to the electorate given the Lib Dems' track record both in the Scottish Parliament (two coalitions with Labour), and across the UK in local government (where before Thursday they were quite happily in coalition with Tories in several major Councils including Birmingham and of course with the SNP in Edinburgh) has always mystified political activists such as myself who have to watch close up on an ongoing basis their willingness to be all things to all voters for a sniff of the leather seats of the Ministerial Mondeo, but there you go.

Despite the attemps to portray himself as a political outsider, Clegg is as careerist a politician as it gets - straight from Uny into a job in Brussels working for Tory Leon Britton on the recommendation of a senior Tory friend of his father's, from there into a Westminster lobbying firm and from there into the Lib Dems to climb the greasy pole to be leader. The only mystery really is which such an obvious Tory boy (Westminster School then Oxbridge) opted for the Lib Dems rather than Tories. No surprise at all that he and Cameron (Eton then Oxbridge) gell personally.

And of course all this electoral reform stuff is just naked self-interest dressed up as bogus social concern. The voters were not clamouring on the doorsteps for electoral reform - as always it was the economy, stupid. The Lib Dems support PR primarily because they think it will give them more seats in the HoC.

LiverpoolHibs

10-05-2010, 06:06 PM

Tories offering a referendum on electoral reform now.

GlesgaeHibby

10-05-2010, 06:10 PM

Tories offering a referendum on electoral reform now.

This is getting to be desperate stuff, and the Lib Dems have come out looking like complete plonkers.

Phil D. Rolls

10-05-2010, 06:12 PM

Is there still time for Jim Gannon to throw his hat into the ring? I don't think the bookies would see that coming.

Apparently he's not interested if Stuart Baxter is in the race.

marinello59

10-05-2010, 06:24 PM

This is getting to be desperate stuff, and the Lib Dems have come out looking like complete plonkers.

Not if the deal with the Tories goes through with Cameron giving them what they wanted. Clegg might be playing an absolute blinder here. Who knows?:greengrin

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 06:27 PM

This is getting to be desperate stuff, and the Lib Dems have come out looking like complete plonkers.That was always likely to happen as soon as they were forced to produce something more than slick presentation and cliched soundbites promising "change" (to what exactly was never quite explained) and to get down with the working end of politics. I agree with Nick too - there is nothing of much substance with which to disagree.

Campaigning is the easy part of politics, you can tell the voters anything - the hard part is being in power and then having to deliver on those promises. The Lib Dems have barely crawled out of the sandpit and they are already being found out. Like Groucho Marx, they have got their principles and if you don't like them - well, they have plenty of other ones you can have instead.

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 06:34 PM

Not if the deal with the Tories goes through with Cameron giving them what they wanted. Clegg might be playing an absolute blinder here. Who knows?:greengrin...and if they do go into coalition with the Tories, where exactly do they go from there?

At the next election - and there will be a next election - what purpose will the Lib Dems, who have built their careers on being a tactical vote, a safe place for middle class Lentilistas to park their consciences at no risk to their personal prosperity, actually serve? Voters will have worked out that if you want Labour you need to vote Labour, if you don't want Labour you might as well vote for the real thing ie Tory.

One of the Tories' election posters has apparently been amended to read:

"I have never voted Tory before ... now I don't have to, Nick does it for me"

Sums it up really.

Betty Boop

10-05-2010, 06:36 PM

The Tories are offering a referundum on AV, which is preferential rather than proportional. Although it is fairer the Lib Dems would not end up with more seats with this system.

hibsbollah

10-05-2010, 06:40 PM

This is getting to be desperate stuff, and the Lib Dems have come out looking like complete plonkers.

Its Cameron who's come out of this election looking like a ('ow you say in eenglish) 'plonker'.

He was supposed to be good in front of the cameras, He was supposed to be a good negotiator, whats happened? Despite a 20 point lead, the biggest economic crisis since the 30s, a dead duck leader who nobody likes, hes contrived to do worse during the campaign than the other 2 candidates, and possibly handed Labour an unprecedented 4th term because he couldnt do a deal with Clegg.

If I was a Tory i'd want him replaced. He's had a Mixu-esque election.

hibsbollah

10-05-2010, 06:42 PM

Alan Milburn left-wing?! Plus, he isn't even an M.P. anymore.

John Cruddas (backed by Compass) and John McDonnell (backed by the LRC) will be the left candidates I'd imagine.

My apologies, I meant Alan Johnson.

Hibbyradge

10-05-2010, 06:45 PM

This is getting to be desperate stuff, and the Lib Dems have come out looking like complete plonkers.

The Lib Dems look like the winners, to me.

And, if anyone thought that the Tories won this election, this offer of a referendum on AV should put them right.

It looks like Labour have offered to directly legislate for AV without having a referendum.

Goodness only knows what will happen now.

Amazing stuff. Real politics in action.

I'm loving it.

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

My apologies, I meant Alan Johnson.

We knew. :greengrin

marinello59

10-05-2010, 06:48 PM

...and if they do go into coalition with the Tories, where exactly do they go from there?
.

As I said, who knows?:greengrin Clegg may never hold this much power again. He has to explore every avenue. It will be some time before any of us know if he has played his hand well or not.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------

Amazing stuff. Real politics in action.

Ain't that the truth. :thumbsup:

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 06:49 PM

If I was a Tory i'd want him replaced. He's had a Mixu-esque election.Quite a number of them seem to be starting to say that themselves already. All the negotiating so far has involved a clique of Cameroons and the mainstream Party is not necessarily on board. They were willing to put up with Posh Boy when he looked to be romping to victory, but the current position is another story.

The in-fighting between the various factions of the "nice" Lib Dems has started too. Interesting times indeed.

hibsbollah

10-05-2010, 06:57 PM

.

Amazing stuff. Real politics in action.

I'm loving it.

:agree: Its fascinating.

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 06:58 PM

As I said, who knows?:greengrin Clegg may never hold this much power again. He has to explore every avenue. It will be some time before any of us know if he has played his hand well or notThere are no circumstances in which he can play a good hand. This is classic "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" territory.

Option 1 - coalition with Tories: the Lib Dems will be an active part, or at least actively supporting, a Government which will be implementing the most savage financial policies since the great depression, Thatcherism 2. That will alienate all those who voted Lib Dem on the basis of their vaguely leftist claims like opposition to Iraq, green policies etc and will also confirm Labour's "vote Nick, get Dave" line.

Option 2 - coalition with Labour: coalition of losers, keeping a deeply unpopular Govt in power, seen as deeply undemocratic.

Option 3 - coalition with no one: forcing voters back to another quick election (always unpopular), derided by the other Parties as not ready for real Government, shown to be irrelevant in the wider scheme of things.

GlesgaeHibby

10-05-2010, 07:01 PM

Its Cameron who's come out of this election looking like a ('ow you say in eenglish) 'plonker'.

He was supposed to be good in front of the cameras, He was supposed to be a good negotiator, whats happened? Despite a 20 point lead, the biggest economic crisis since the 30s, a dead duck leader who nobody likes, hes contrived to do worse during the campaign than the other 2 candidates, and possibly handed Labour an unprecedented 4th term because he couldnt do a deal with Clegg.

If I was a Tory i'd want him replaced. He's had a Mixu-esque election.

I agree with that too, and I think Osborne is certainly finished, and potentially Cameron if they can't get into Downing Street.

Osborne was in charge of the campaign and managed to lose to one of the most unpopular governments in a long long time.

marinello59

10-05-2010, 07:03 PM

There are no circumstances in which he can play a good hand.

.

Of course he can. You seem to be letting your dislike of the Lib Dems obscure the fact that they could do very well out of this. They could also do very badly. We just don't know. To argue that they can't come out of this well under any circumstances seems more like wishful thinking on your part.
I think we can agree it is unprecedented high drama though.:greengrin

AgentDaleCooper

10-05-2010, 07:15 PM

I agree with that too, and I think Osborne is certainly finished, and potentially Cameron if they can't get into Downing Street.

Osborne was in charge of the campaign and managed to lose to one of the most unpopular governments in a long long time.

yip. imagine what it would be like if they were actually in charge. they basically failed to shoot a barrel of fish. stay away form the economy please, incompetent tory morons.

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 07:24 PM

I agree with that too, and I think Osborne is certainly finished, and potentially Cameron if they can't get into Downing Street.

Osborne was in charge of the campaign and managed to lose to one of the most unpopular governments in a long long time.

That's a good spot. He really is crap. I think he's dog food anyway in the medium term whether Cameron gets in or not.

Danderhall Hibs

10-05-2010, 07:30 PM

Option 2 - coalition with Labour: coalition of losers, keeping a deeply unpopular Govt in power, seen as deeply undemocratic.

More folk voted Labour and Liberal than voted Tory though.

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 07:36 PM

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 07:38 PM

Of course he can. You seem to be letting your dislike of the Lib Dems obscure the fact that they could do very well out of this. They could also do very badly. We just don't know. To argue that they can't come out of this well under any circumstances seems more like wishful thinking on your part.
I think we can agree it is unprecedented high drama though.:greengrinMy dislike of the Lib Dems is a given but I have been around politics far too long to let personal opinions obscure the facts.

So I am listening. Assuming that neither of the main Parties is going to cave in and agree to full PR or even something close (and they are not), explain to me how the Lib Dems can come out of this other than as a diminished force. Even more diminished than they already were by their pretty poor showing on Thursday night, that is. Voters may just have noticed the absurdity of a Party which for all its hubris actually ended up with five seats less than they started with, now playing kingmaker and in a position to decide who governs the UK.

Voters may also have worked out that with PR that is exactly the kind of tail wagging the dog one gets all of the time.

Beefster

10-05-2010, 07:39 PM

More folk voted Labour and Liberal than voted Tory though.

You're making a PR argument in a FPTP (currently) system. It's about as relevant as saying that 58% of voters in Scotland voted against Labour.

lapsedhibee

10-05-2010, 07:40 PM

I think you are wrong here. Describe the credible outcome which could be good for the Lib Dems - its almost impossible to do.

Lab and Con are now both more or less promising them AV. If a proper auction ensues, the Libs could conceivably get a promise of PR. That would be a result all right.

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 07:43 PM

More folk voted Labour and Liberal than voted Tory though.Do you think that will satisfy an electorate used to seeing the Party which gets the most seats being the winner? I don't.

Anything less than Tory involvement will be seen as a coalation of losers. I am an unapologetic Labour supporter but even I concede that Thursday's vote was not a vote to keep Labour in government. It just wasn't, and voters know that.

Danderhall Hibs

10-05-2010, 07:44 PM

You're making a PR argument in a FPTP (currently) system. It's about as relevant as saying that 58% of voters in Scotland voted against Labour.

That's what the Tory's have been doing since Friday morning. "2 million more voters" has been uttered more than a few times.

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 07:45 PM

They'll be the Blairite (Blair-right:greengrin) candidates. Alan Milburn and Ed Balls will be potentially more left-wing candidates...

Neither of the Milibands can sensibly be described as Blairites in terms of their policy positions. DM is more centrist and EM more centre left.

Ed Balls as a more left wing candidate might stand up as a proposition if a) our starting point is somewhere further right than Attila the Hun and b) we are consuming a lot of non-prescription medicine.

Balls however is about as popular as rabies.

Beefster

10-05-2010, 07:53 PM

That's what the Tory's have been doing since Friday morning. "2 million more voters" has been uttered more than a few times.

Along with "and 50 more seats", I'm sure.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

Neither of the Milibands can sensibly be described as Blairites in terms of their policy positions. DM is more centrist and EM more centre left.

Ed Balls as a more left wing candidate might stand up as a proposition if a) our starting point is somewhere further right than Attila the Hun and b) we are consuming a lot of non-prescription medicine.

Balls however is about as popular as rabies.

I'm backing Balls! It's the dream scenario.

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 07:55 PM

Lab and Con are now both more or less promising them AV. If a proper auction ensues, the Libs could conceivably get a promise of PR. That would be a result all right.

No they could not conceivably get a promise of PR because neither Tory nor Labour MPs will support or concede this. AV will be as far as it goes. So they are going to have to support vast and vastly unpopular cuts in exchange for what? An AV system which their MPs, their members and their voters know does not represent any kind of significant change.

They are going to be royally shafted in all this and they deserve every single time it is stuck up them.

Danderhall Hibs

10-05-2010, 07:55 PM

Along with "and 50 more seats", I'm sure.

Sometimes but the 2 million more thing is definitely being pushed a lot more - probably because they see it as a more effective way to point out how much they "won" by.

So using that/their logic a Lab-Lib coalition got more votes than the Tory's. :greengrin

hibsdaft

10-05-2010, 07:59 PM

adam boulton loses plot with alastair campbell:

YouTube - Adam Boulton (Sky News) v Alastair Campbell (Labour) - FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8)

skip to 4 mins in

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 07:59 PM

Along with "and 50 more seats", I'm sure.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

I'm backing Balls! It's the dream scenario.

Beefster I was just about to start agreeing with you on the nonsense that a PR system represents when you go and cheer on Ed Balls. Let's do a deal - Labour can be led by Balls if the Tories are led by Letwin.

To go back to PR - what do you think the public will make of the revoltingly undemocratic post-election deal making that goes on under PR after EVERY SINGLE ELECTION? At least with FPTP it is relatively rare.

lyonhibs

10-05-2010, 08:05 PM

adam boulton loses plot with alastair campbell:

YouTube - Adam Boulton (Sky News) v Alastair Campbell (Labour) - FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8)

skip to 4 mins in

If no fan of Alastair Campbell - the man is so oily he could jump into the seas and not get wet - but Adam Boulton comes across as a real "toys out the pram" knob in that clip.

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 08:09 PM

adam boulton loses plot with alastair campbell:

YouTube - Adam Boulton (Sky News) v Alastair Campbell (Labour) - FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8)

skip to 4 mins in

It is very entertaining but are you aware that there is VERY personal history between these two? One of them has a big chip on his shoulder about how someone close to him feels about the other.

Danderhall Hibs

10-05-2010, 08:10 PM

If no fan of Alastair Campbell - the man is so oily he could jump into the seas and not get wet - but Adam Boulton comes across as a real "toys out the pram" knob in that clip.

I like Campbell - he really wound up Boulton in that clip! Boulton seems to be taking Cameron not getting a majority really personally.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

It is very entertaining but are you aware that there is VERY personal history between these two? One of them has a big chip on his shoulder about how someone close to him feels about the other.

Need to hear more than that!

hibsdaft

10-05-2010, 08:12 PM

It is very entertaining but are you aware that there is VERY personal history between these two? One of them has a big chip on his shoulder about how someone close to him feels about the other.

so i understand, yup (its their wives apparently Danderhall Hibs).

i'm not a fan of either tbh, just found it funny.

Leicester Fan

10-05-2010, 08:12 PM

More folk voted Labour and Liberal than voted Tory though.
Even more folk voted Con/Lib than Labour though. If the Liberal voters wanted a Labour govt they could have voted Labour. You can't assume that all Liberals would prefer a Labour govt.

Danderhall Hibs

10-05-2010, 08:15 PM

Even more folk voted Con/Lib than Labour though. If the Liberal voters wanted a Labour govt they could have voted Labour. You can't assume that all Liberals would prefer a Labour govt.

I know that but the Tory's don't want to come up with the goods. Although I see they've panicked into offering a referendum so maybe Cameron will get his way. The Libs will lose a lot of votes in Scotland with a pact with the Tory's though and if it's only an informal agreement they will get shafted by the Tory's.

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 08:20 PM

The PR apologists are prone to perpetuating two myths:

(a) It is inherently fairer that FPTP - of course it is not, there are many voting systems and most have their fans, but none are wholly fair. The argument very much hangs on what kind of Government one wants - if one prefers minority losers in the position of kingmaker (as Clegg is at present, and Salmond and his Plaid Cymru pals - not even big in Wales - would like to be), then PR does it every time. Israel, where by and large the balance of power is held by fringe nutters with negligible support, is no shining example of electoral fairness.

FPTP generally produces a decisive result without the sort of undemocratic horsetrading which we are currently seeing. Many voters prefer that.

(b) The current FPTP voting patterns would be replicated exactly under PR - they almost certainly would not. The UK's electorate is quite sophisticated and votes in all kinds of tactical patterns in an effort to ensure that certain candidates, or Parties, do not win. PR makes all of that unnecessary, so the vote split would look entirely different.

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 08:24 PM

I know that but the Tory's don't want to come up with the goods. Although I see they've panicked into offering a referendum so maybe Cameron will get his way. The Libs will lose a lot of votes in Scotland with a pact with the Tory's though and if it's only an informal agreement they will get shafted by the Tory's.Until we see the fine details and the conditions, it will not be entirely clear what either the Tories or Labour are offering on electoral reform, but I doubt that it will go anywhere close to what the Lib Dems will settle for. If it does you can be sure that the MPs of the major Parties will not support it in the House.

Either way, any serious move towards PR is doomed. Far too high a price. Far better to let the Lib Dems force another Election and let them pay the price for that at the ballot box.

Leicester Fan

10-05-2010, 08:29 PM

I know that but the Tory's don't want to come up with the goods. Although I see they've panicked into offering a referendum so maybe Cameron will get his way. The Libs will lose a lot of votes in Scotland with a pact with the Tory's though and if it's only an informal agreement they will get shafted by the Tory's.

Reading on here over the last few weeks it seems that there is no love lost between Labour and the SNP and yet the nationalists would be needed for any kind of referendum.

Part of me wants to see Labour desperately cling to power with a rag bag of smaller parties trying to enforce the cuts that we all know are coming or suffer the consequences of not enforcing those cuts. They wouldn't last 6 months and at the end the Tories would win a landslide.

Unfortunately I have to live in this country and it wouldn't be good for the country as a whole. I don't want the Libs involved but the country needs a stable govt and some sort of coalition between the Con/Libs is the only thing that will provide that.

marinello59

10-05-2010, 08:33 PM

explain to me how the Lib Dems can come out of this other than as a diminished force. Even more diminished than they already were by their pretty poor showing on Thursday night, that is.

You could ask that of all of Parties though couldn't you It isn't just the Lib Dems who will be compromising their principles. No party can claim they did particularly well on Thursday night can they?
I suspect a minority Tory Goverment could emerge from the confusion though.

Hibbie0762

10-05-2010, 08:55 PM

You could ask that of all of Parties though couldn't you It isn't just the Lib Dems who will be compromising their principles. No party can claim they did particularly well on Thursday night can they?
I suspect a minority Tory Goverment could emerge from the confusion though.I could but the discussion related to the Lib Dems and the three options which I laid out, so maybe you could address that particular point. The Lib Dems' principles (or lack thereof) are not really the issue.

No Party did as well as they would have wanted on Thursday, but at least one did less badly than they had expected, and at least two (three in Scotland) did a hell of a lot worse than they had expected.

A minority Tory Government could well emerge - that really falls under my option 3 and has much the same consequences for our Beige friends.

So my question remains - what do you think the Lib Dems can realistically achieve out of their present predicament which will not leave them diminished in the eyes of the voters? And the answer is not PR because it isn't going to run.

Sir David Gray

10-05-2010, 09:01 PM

If there is another election, which is looking likely, I can see Labour doing pretty well in it. They'll have a new leader, which will appease all the anti-Brown English voters who deserted them last week, and I think a fair number of Lib Dem voters will turn to Labour, to punish them for even thinking about getting into bed with the Conservatives.

Even if the Tories do end up winning a re-election, I don't think Labour will be slaughtered like they were last week. The thing that may help the Tories, however, is that a lot of the seats that were won by the Lib Dems saw the Conservative candidate in second place, so they may end up taking advantage of Lib Dem voters turning their back on their party.

One way or another, the Lib Dems were shocked and disappointed with their performance at last week's election but that might well be nothing compared with how badly they'll likely do in any upcoming re-election.

marinello59

10-05-2010, 09:03 PM

I could but the discussion related to the Lib Dems and the three options which I laid out, so maybe you could address that particular point. The Lib Dems' principles (or lack thereof) are not really the issue.

No Party did as well as they would have wanted on Thursday, but at least one did less badly than they had expected, and at least two (three in Scotland) did a hell of a lot worse than they had expected.

A minority Tory Government could well emerge - that really falls under my option 3 and has much the same consequences for our Beige friends.

So my question remains - what do you think the Lib Dems can realistically achieve out of their present predicament which will not leave them diminished in the eyes of the voters? And the answer is not PR because it isn't going to run.

I already answered this, we just don't know.:greengrin We could all spin all sorts of projections for how the fortunes of the various political parties plays out but it would be pointless right now. Throw a load of options and outcomes up in the air and match them up. It's as good an answer as we will get right now. I wouldn't assume that the electorate will naturally punish any party for compromise though. In fact at the moment I wouldn't assume anything.

Part/Time Supporter

10-05-2010, 09:07 PM

How have the Lib Dems succeeded in three days in achieving what half the Labour Party has failed to do in two years?

:stirrer:

Hibbyradge

10-05-2010, 09:07 PM

If there is another election, which is looking likely, I can see Labour doing pretty well in it. They'll have a new leader, which will appease all the anti-Brown English voters who deserted them last week,

I agree with this.

Another thing to consider is that Labour actually significantly increased it's vote, and seats, in the English local elections last week.

That suggests to me that the electorate wanted rid of the non-celebrity Brown, but would still be happy with the Party if he was gone.

Sir David Gray

10-05-2010, 09:09 PM

Apart from anything else, I just want another election in a couple of months so I can make another "election night" update thread on here. :greengrin

Part/Time Supporter

10-05-2010, 09:11 PM

I agree with this.

Another thing to consider is that Labour actually significantly increased it's vote, and seats, in the English local elections last week.

That suggests to me that the electorate wanted rid of the non-celebrity Brown, but would still be happy with the Party if he was gone.

Labour was always going to do "better" in the local elections compared to a ridiculously low result in 2006 (height of Iraq / Blair unpopularity), particularly when they were hitched onto the general election. ie a lot of Labour voters who wouldn't have bothered to vote for the councillor would have done so while they happened to be in the polling place to vote for the MP.

lapsedhibee

10-05-2010, 09:14 PM

No they could not conceivably get a promise of PR because neither Tory nor Labour MPs will support or concede this.

As I understand it Lab have already promised Lib a referendum on PR. How are Con and Lab MPs going to ensure that it never comes to pass - contrive that less than 600 other people vote in the referendum? :dunno:

hibsbollah

10-05-2010, 09:21 PM

Ed Balls as a more left wing candidate might stand up as a proposition if a) our starting point is somewhere further right than Attila the Hun and b) we are consuming a lot of non-prescription medicine.

Balls however is about as popular as rabies.

As usual, you dont appear to know much about the subject you are attempting to discuss:blah:

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 11:04 PM

As usual, you dont appear to know much about the subject you are attempting to discuss:blah:

The range of issues on which you are clueless is actually quite impressive.

If you can make a credible argument for Ed Balls being a more left wing candidate then you will be doing better than the current Cabinet, the PLP and most of the Labour Party membership. I'm afraid that, as you have demonstrated, reading the Guardian really doesn't qualify you to make informed observations about Labour politics or indeed most things.

Cruddas and MacDonald would be left candidates. Alan Johnson is a working class boy but is probably the most Blairite of the lot. Balls is a collection of soundbites, random policy initiatives and inconsistent politics - his closest connection to being left is that Charlie Whelan carries a lot of sway with the unions. Harman is more left than Balls.

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 11:09 PM

As I understand it Lab have already promised Lib a referendum on PR. How are Con and Lab MPs going to ensure that it never comes to pass - contrive that less than 600 other people vote in the referendum? :dunno:

They are talking about AV. Av is PR like Hibs are Barcelona. If that had been used in the current election Labour and the Tories end up with roughly the same number of seats and the Lib Dems go up by about ten seats. That is not a threatening form of electoral reform and it certainly isn't PR. Even then I wouldn't bet on the Labour and Tory MPs voting it through parliament.

lapsedhibee

10-05-2010, 11:12 PM

They are talking about AV. Av is PR like Hibs are Barcelona. If that had been used in the current election Labour and the Tories end up with roughly the same number of seats and the Lib Dems go up by about ten seats. That is not a threatening form of electoral reform and it certainly isn't PR. Even then I wouldn't bet on the Labour and Tory MPs voting it through parliament.

TV reports this evening have been that Con have offered a referendum on AV and Lab have offered AV and a referendum on PR.

One Day Soon

10-05-2010, 11:24 PM

TV reports this evening have been that Con have offered a referendum on AV and Lab have offered AV and a referendum on PR.

A referendum on AV is like a guy trying to get laid and being offered a four week consultation process on the possibility of a kiss.

As I said before AV is worth next to nothing. A referendum on PR would need to be agreed by parliament and I doubt they would get that through given that more than half the parliamentary Labour Party wouldn't support it and none of the Tories would.

The proof of this particular poisonous pudding will be in the eating - let's see what is tangible that the Lib Dems come out of this with.

steakbake

11-05-2010, 12:03 AM

Lib Dems now in talks with Labour. Looks like Gordon falling on his sword might be the price for a Lib-Lab deal:confused:

Aye... told yez.

Dashing Bob S

11-05-2010, 05:17 AM

There will be a lot of dealing, threats and brinkmanship over the PR issue. The Lib Dems will have to play hardball, they may never get the chance again. The idea that they can breakthrough in the FPTP system is fanciful; they will continue to get anything from 6 to 60 MP's and that's about as much as they can expect.

For Labour and the Tories, the stakes are just as high. If they agree to PR they may never form a majority administration again.

The Tories have to decide whether they can squeeze any more votes out of the next election; after all they couldn't get a majority in a major recession against one of the most unpopular leaders ever. A Labour Party led by a slicker, more media friendly, middle England moderniser might eat back into the vote, particularly if the Tory right turn on Cameron in frustration.

I get the feeling the Tories and Labour might both decide that PR isn't worth a power share in what is likely to be a transitional government. If it goes to a referendum however, there's no telling what will happen.

Beefster

11-05-2010, 06:24 AM

Beefster I was just about to start agreeing with you on the nonsense that a PR system represents when you go and cheer on Ed Balls. Let's do a deal - Labour can be led by Balls if the Tories are led by Letwin.

To go back to PR - what do you think the public will make of the revoltingly undemocratic post-election deal making that goes on under PR after EVERY SINGLE ELECTION? At least with FPTP it is relatively rare.

I'm reading Chris Mullin's diary at the moment and, while I (and more, I suspect) always viewed Letwin as a buffoon, Mullin is very complimentary towards him (so far). Surprising coming from an old leftie!

As for PR, I think a lot of voters, not particularly interested in politics, have viewed a hung parliament as some democratic utopia and PR as the way to make every vote count. This episode will have done some damage to that view.

TV reports this evening have been that Con have offered a referendum on AV and Lab have offered AV and a referendum on PR.

Tom Harris (prominent Labour MP blogger from Glasgow) was on Newsnight saying that a vote on AV may get past Labour MPs but nothing further towards PR would have a chance. The BBC seem to be reporting that Labour have actually offered to put AV into law and then hold a referendum on it however.

Edit: Harris' blog on the situation: http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2010/05/10/developments-and-observations/

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 06:57 AM

The range of issues on which you are clueless is actually quite impressive.

If you can make a credible argument for Ed Balls being a more left wing candidate then you will be doing better than the current Cabinet, the PLP and most of the Labour Party membership. I'm afraid that, as you have demonstrated, reading the Guardian really doesn't qualify you to make informed observations about Labour politics or indeed most things.

Cruddas and MacDonald would be left candidates. Alan Johnson is a working class boy but is probably the most Blairite of the lot. Balls is a collection of soundbites, random policy initiatives and inconsistent politics - his closest connection to being left is that Charlie Whelan carries a lot of sway with the unions. Harman is more left than Balls.

I have met Ed Balls, I have seen him speak at an academic, non-partisan conference, and I have read a number of his policy papers when he was working for the Treasury. He was the architect of a number of New Labour's most progressive social policies, including the New Deal, and most importantly, he is seen by many of the Left of the Labour Party as the 'torch-bearer' for pre-Blair, if not exactly Old Labour beliefs. He has also referred to himself many times as a 'socialist'.

Try to read a little more and go on the verbal attack a little less, especially when you are debating something you dont know much about. You might actually learn something:faf:

lapsedhibee

11-05-2010, 07:10 AM

Tom Harris (prominent Labour MP blogger from Glasgow) was on Newsnight saying that a vote on AV may get past Labour MPs but nothing further towards PR would have a chance. The BBC seem to be reporting that Labour have actually offered to put AV into law and then hold a referendum on it however.

The BBC last night was reporting that Lab have offered to put AV into law and then hold a referendum on PR, not a referendum on AV. If Lib were to accept that offer, it is not at all inconceivable - though Harris argues against it, perhaps out of self interest, perhaps not - that Lab MPs would have to toe the line in a commons vote and accept the deal. It wouldn't then matter what Con MPs did because they'd be in a minority (that would be the point of having a Lib-Lab coalition). So it's not at all inconceivable that Lib could come out of this election with some serious benefit.

Some posters here appear to identify democracy with FPTP, a bit of a scary fixation.

Beefster

11-05-2010, 07:25 AM

The BBC last night was reporting that Lab have offered to put AV into law and then hold a referendum on PR, not a referendum on AV. If Lib were to accept that offer, it is not at all inconceivable - though Harris argues against it, perhaps out of self interest, perhaps not - that Lab MPs would have to toe the line in a commons vote and accept the deal. It wouldn't then matter what Con MPs did because they'd be in a minority (that would be the point of having a Lib-Lab coalition). So it's not at all inconceivable that Lib could come out of this election with some serious benefit.

Some posters here appear to identify democracy with FPTP, a bit of a scary fixation.

I saw the BBC report last night about the referendum on PR but one of their stories today has:

It comes after Gordon Brown, who said he was standing down as Labour leader, offered to put AV into law with a referendum for voters to approve it.

Unfortunately, for the party leaders, I doubt any MPs have to toe the party line if it's not a manifesto commitment. There is no way some Labour MPs (in particular, from Scotland) will vote for STV.

BBC also reporting:

Senior Lib Dem Simon Hughes tells BBC Radio 5 live he would not expect the SNP to be part of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition.

which would make it even harder to get any legislation through. Not surprising though, considering the outrage in England that would be caused by sweetners for Scotland, Wales and NI.

In response to your last line, I don't think it's a fixation - I think some consider it the 'least worst' electoral method. It delivers strong government (which is exactly what is needed right now), gives at least a section of the electorate what they voted for (rather than none), maintains the constituency link, avoids the manifestos being bargained and revised in smoky rooms after the election, doesn't give the main power to decide government policies (and leaders) to minor parties etc.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 07:58 AM

I already answered this, we just don't know.:greengrin We could all spin all sorts of projections for how the fortunes of the various political parties plays out but it would be pointless right now. Throw a load of options and outcomes up in the air and match them up. It's as good an answer as we will get right now. I wouldn't assume that the electorate will naturally punish any party for compromise though. In fact at the moment I wouldn't assume anything.Your answer appears to be that YOU just don't know, which is a bit different.

I set out three quite clear options and set out why I believe none of these can benefit the Lib Dems in the longer term. Other than minor variations on the main themes, I do not believe that there are at this time any other viable options.

If you think there are, or if you think that in the longer term the Lib Dems can benefit from any of my options - either foisting a Tory government on the UK, foisting the current, discredited Labour government on the country (with a different, unelected leader incidentally) or simply sitting on their Beige hands and foisting another General Election/minority Tory government on the country, do tell. Simple as that.

Sometimes politics IS almost an exact science.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 08:16 AM

Some posters here appear to identify democracy with FPTP, a bit of a scary fixation.Some posters on here appear to identify democracy with PR, a bit of a clue that they have not read up nearly enough on the various available voting systems and the type of governments which they tend to throw up.

Representation in direct proportion to vote share looks superficially attractive until one considers the countries who use that system.

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 08:19 AM

Your answer appears to be that YOU just don't know, which is a bit different.

I set out three quite clear options and set out why I believe none of these can benefit the Lib Dems in the longer term. Other than minor variations on the main themes, I do not believe that there are at this time any other viable options.

If you think there are, or if you think that in the longer term the Lib Dems can benefit from any of my options - either foisting a Tory government on the UK, foisting the current, discredited Labour government on the country (with a different, unelected leader incidentally) or simply sitting on their Beige hands and foisting another General Election/minority Tory government on the country, do tell. Simple as that.

Sometimes politics IS almost an exact science.

It is also possible that a coalition Govt involving the Lib Dems could achieve actual policy success in Government. This becomes more likely if the likes of Cable or Huhne gets a cabinet post; Cable in particular would have a good shout with Osborne or Darling as the likely alternative as Chancellor. If the public perceive the Lib Dems in Govt to have made Labour or the Tories more palatable (given them a human face), the Lib Dems will benefit in the longer term. Once they show they have the ability to exercise power, a lot of the scepticism might lift.

I agree with Marinello; the only thing we know about the future of the UK, politically speaking, is that there are no knowns, and lots of unknown unknowns:greengrin Thats why its so interesting...

lapsedhibee

11-05-2010, 08:25 AM

In response to your last line, I don't think it's a fixation - I think some consider it the 'least worst' electoral method. It delivers strong government (which is exactly what is needed right now), gives at least a section of the electorate what they voted for (rather than none), maintains the constituency link, avoids the manifestos being bargained and revised in smoky rooms after the election, doesn't give the main power to decide government policies (and leaders) to minor parties etc.

Accept the point about considering FPTP the least worst of the options, but find your last line a bit midleading. Shirley in this country FPTP is exactly what has traditionally given minorities here the power over majorities to decide policies and leaders? eg Con landslide 1979: 44% of vote, Lab landslide 1997: 43% of vote.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 08:49 AM

It is also possible that a coalition Govt involving the Lib Dems could achieve actual policy success in Government. This becomes more likely if the likes of Cable or Huhne gets a cabinet post; Cable in particular would have a good shout with Osborne or Darling as the likely alternative as Chancellor. If the public perceive the Lib Dems in Govt to have made Labour or the Tories more palatable (given them a human face), the Lib Dems will benefit in the longer term. Once they show they have the ability to exercise power, a lot of the scepticism might lift.

I agree with Marinello; the only thing we know about the future of the UK, politically speaking, is that there are no knowns, and lots of unknown unknowns:greengrin Thats why its so interesting...I might take your comments more seriously had I not seen your your earlier views on where Ed Balls sits in the Labour Party firmament. The parallel universe which you describe sounds an interesting place but bears little relation to the Labour Party where my membership sits.

The fantastical scenario which you describe above stands a snowball's chance in Hell of happening. Given the current financial situation, whichever Government comes to power is going to look anything but palatable or human when the cuts start to fall, and the Lib Dems as the minority kingmakers who put them there are going to pay a serious price for doing so. Far from the "ability to exercise power", they will get a few crumbs and a share of the blame.

Vince Cable and Chis Huhne as Ministers - oh, yes please. Voters will quickly find out that there is quite a difference between pontificating from the moral high ground on what the other lot are doing wrong and having to implement hard choices in order to put it right. The other consequence of Lib Dem involvement is that they quickly lose their "political outsiders" myth, which is entirely bogus anyway.

On your final claim, I direct you to my reply to Marinello. In this particular situation, we know quite a lot about the available options and what they are likely to mean for the various Parties. While no-one can predict the future, we can safely deduce that the likelihood of an underperforming minority Party whose entitlement to play kingmaker is already being put under scrutiny emerging triumphant from the present situation is in bookie's terms a 200/1 outsider.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 08:58 AM

Accept the point about considering FPTP the least worst of the options, but find your last line a bit midleading. Shirley in this country FPTP is exactly what has traditionally given minorities here the power over majorities to decide policies and leaders? eg Con landslide 1979: 44% of vote, Lab landslide 1997: 43% of vote.FPTP is not about vote share, and nor should it be.

PR is about vote share, which is why countries which employ it end up with Parties with a small percentage of the vote playing kingmaker as to who governs. A bit like the Lib Dems at the moment, in other words - a Party with 23% of the popular vote, which underperformed in the election and actually ended up worse off than it started, swanning about playing off the two Parties which both did much better than the Lib Dems against each other, and basically in a position to put the Party which finished second back into power should they feel it suits their interests to do so.

If you can convince me why that is democratic, you will have gone some way to making a viable case for PR :devil:

marinello59

11-05-2010, 09:00 AM

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 09:21 AM

I do have to admire your confidence in your own ability to predict the future at this time. :greengrinIn what way does outlining the options as I see them and inviting you to comment constitute predicting the future? I note that you have once again evaded my direct question. I can only assume you accept that these are the only viable options and are unable to articulate more optimistic outcomes for the third Party than I have done.

From the rolling news, it looks as though we may be moving towards an endgame. We will shortly find out what form of political suicide the Lib Dems have chosen.

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 09:32 AM

FPTP is not about vote share, and nor should it be.

PR is about vote share, which is why countries which employ it end up with Parties with a small percentage of the vote playing kingmaker as to who governs. A bit like the Lib Dems at the moment, in other words - a Party with 23% of the popular vote, which underperformed in the election and actually ended up worse off than it started, swanning about playing off the two Parties which both did much better than the Lib Dems against each other, and basically in a position to put the Party which finished second back into power should they feel it suits their interests to do so.

If you can convince me why that is democratic, you will have gone some way to making a viable case for PR :devil:

What is completely undemocratic is a party getting 6% more of the vote and getting 200 seats more? Absolutely farcical situation to be honest. I think electoral reform needs to happen and not tinkering round the edges which has allowed the 2 main parties to dominate sometimes with as low as 36% of the vote. I am sure there will be issues with whatever reform takes place however anything which improves the current farce and much better represents the popular vote would be an improvement. Hope the Lib Dems get a real deal and are not stitched up by the playground bullies in the shape of the 2 main parties? Make no bones about it this is an opportunity the Lib Dems cant afford to fail at as I dont think they will get another chance?

lapsedhibee

11-05-2010, 09:42 AM

What is completely undemocratic is a party getting 6% more of the vote and getting 200 seats more?

Apparently this leads to "strong government" which is "good for the country".

marinello59

11-05-2010, 09:46 AM

In what way does outlining the options as I see them and inviting you to comment constitute predicting the future? I note that you have once again evaded my direct question. I can only assume you accept that these are the only viable options and are unable to articulate more optimistic outcomes for the third Party than I have done.From the rolling news, it looks as though we may be moving towards an endgame. We will shortly find out what form of political suicide the Lib Dems have chosen.

I am not evading it. Others on here have outlined how the Lib Dems could win. You are pretty confident that you have can predict every outcome for the Lib Dems in this and they are all bad. As I said, I admire your confidence in your own ability to read the situation. I wouldn't dare to presume how the electorate will react to anything that comes out of this though

Beefster

11-05-2010, 09:50 AM

From the BBC:

Labour negotiators are so confident about how talks are going with the Lib Dems that they've already drawn up a five-point plan for how to sell a Lab-Lib deal to voters and to doubters within their own ranks, says the BBC's Iain Watson. First and foremost, they plan to argue that a vote for Labour wasn't a vote for Gordon Brown. They say the UK doesn't have a presidential system so it's fine to change the leader post-election, and argue that support for Labour is likely to increase now Mr Brown is set to go.

Deal agreed by the end of the day?

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 10:01 AM

I am not evading it. Others on here have outlined how the Lib Dems could win. You are pretty confident that you have can predict every outcome for the Lib Dems in this and they are all bad. As I said, I admire your confidence in your own ability to read the situation. I wouldn't dare to presume how the electorate will react to anything that comes out of this thoughNothing to do with confidence. It doesn't take genius to identify the options, just a working knowledge of politics and common sense. Yes, I am saying quite clearly that I see three viable options for the LDs and that in every case the likely outcomes are bad. I have invited you three times either to explain why the outcomes will not be bad or to identify other options. You have avoided doing so on each occasion.

Happy to accept that you have no answers and to leave it there :greengrin

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 10:04 AM

What is completely undemocratic is a party getting 6% more of the vote and getting 200 seats more? Absolutely farcical situation to be honest. I think electoral reform needs to happen and not tinkering round the edges which has allowed the 2 main parties to dominate sometimes with as low as 36% of the vote. I am sure there will be issues with whatever reform takes place however anything which improves the current farce and much better represents the popular vote would be an improvement. Hope the Lib Dems get a real deal and are not stitched up by the playground bullies in the shape of the 2 main parties? Make no bones about it this is an opportunity the Lib Dems cant afford to fail at as I dont think they will get another chance?You haven't answered my question. Seems to be an epidemic of that around here this morning. :greengrin

marinello59

11-05-2010, 10:27 AM

Nothing to do with confidence. It doesn't take genius to identify the options, just a working knowledge of politics and common sense. Yes, I am saying quite clearly that I see three viable options for the LDs and that in every case the likely outcomes are bad. I have invited you three times either to explain why the outcomes will not be bad or to identify other options. You have avoided doing so on each occasion.

Happy to accept that you have no answers and to leave it there :greengrin

And I am happy to accept that you think you have all the answers and leave it at that.:greengrin

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 10:41 AM

And I am happy to accept that you think you have all the answers and leave it at that.:greengrinI can understand your frustration at being unable to put up, if not your reluctance to shut up. At no stage did I say I had all the answers, and you know it.

What I did do was (like some other posters) put up a coherent argument as to why the Lib Dems were screwed whatever happens now and invite you or others to refute it. You are clearly unable to do so. It is a pity that you lack the good grace to admit it.

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 10:46 AM

You haven't answered my question. Seems to be an epidemic of that around here this morning. :greengrin

Have you answered any of mine. How is it democratic or in any way fair for a party to get 6% of the vote more and 200 seats more? I would say it is fundamentally fairer for the 2nd and 3rd parties in an election to join together to form a government if they represent a significant majority of the popular vote. I appreciate that you have indicated you are a Labour party member so the idea of a fair voting system is anathema. :greengrin

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 10:49 AM

Apparently this leads to "strong government" which is "good for the country".

Yep in the national interests :bitchy:, completely unrepresentative parties weilding too much power, no wonder politicians are roundly detested and many choose not to vote.

marinello59

11-05-2010, 10:50 AM

I can understand your frustration at being unable to put up, if not your reluctance to shut up. At no stage did I say I had all the answers, and you know it.

What I did do was (like some other posters) put up a coherent argument as to why the Lib Dems were screwed whatever happens now and invite you or others to refute it. You are clearly unable to do so. It is a pity that you lack the good grace to admit it.

Why are you getting so aggresive? I merely replied to your closing remark in a similar vein. Apologies if it was taken in the wrong spirit, it was meant to be jocular.
I have already said I don't know the outcome. Others have posted up how the Lib Dems could benefit and I can see how they might. I could spin any number of ways that the Lib Dems could benefit but it wouldn't prove anything would it? At the end of the day it would only be speculation and opinion wouldn't it?

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 11:02 AM

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 11:17 AM

Have you answered any of mine. How is it democratic or in any way fair for a party to get 6% of the vote more and 200 seats more? I would say it is fundamentally fairer for the 2nd and 3rd parties in an election to join together to form a government if they represent a significant majority of the popular vote. I appreciate that you have indicated you are a Labour party member so the idea of a fair voting system is anathema. :greengrinTell you what - seeing as how I asked first, pointing out the fundamental problem with PR and the difficulty of making a convincing case for its fairness given what is actually happening in the UK at the moment, how about you address that debate rather than deflect discussion on to another one?

Incidentally, I don't recall arguing that FPTP was fair, or even fairer than any other voting system. All have their pros and cons. But it is important to bear in mind that the object of any voting system is less to produce a result which is micro-mathematically exact, more to produce a government which is actually capable of running the country competently and decisively in good times and bad - "strong and stable" seem to be the current buzz words.

I freely admit that with PR, voters can stand back after an Election and say that they got Party representatives exactly in proportion to the share of the vote. But some might argue that such an outcome while neat and tidy is in practical terms no damn use if what you end up with is perpetually hung parliaments where the Parties with the fewest votes are actually in control. Tails wagging the dog are not democratic either.

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 11:24 AM

I might take your comments more seriously had I not seen your your earlier views on where Ed Balls sits in the Labour Party firmament. The parallel universe which you describe sounds an interesting place but bears little relation to the Labour Party where my membership sits.

The fantastical scenario which you describe above stands a snowball's chance in Hell of happening. Given the current financial situation, whichever Government comes to power is going to look anything but palatable or human when the cuts start to fall, and the Lib Dems as the minority kingmakers who put them there are going to pay a serious price for doing so. Far from the "ability to exercise power", they will get a few crumbs and a share of the blame.

Vince Cable and Chis Huhne as Ministers - oh, yes please. Voters will quickly find out that there is quite a difference between pontificating from the moral high ground on what the other lot are doing wrong and having to implement hard choices in order to put it right. The other consequence of Lib Dem involvement is that they quickly lose their "political outsiders" myth, which is entirely bogus anyway.

On your final claim, I direct you to my reply to Marinello. In this particular situation, we know quite a lot about the available options and what they are likely to mean for the various Parties. While no-one can predict the future, we can safely deduce that the likelihood of an underperforming minority Party whose entitlement to play kingmaker is already being put under scrutiny emerging triumphant from the present situation is in bookie's terms a 200/1 outsider.

Its bizarre. I thought this was quite an enjoyable and educational thread until yourself and onedaysoon started to get all threatened and aggressive:confused: I think you need to relax, or alternatively use the 'ignore' function. Its quite good:greengrin

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 11:24 AM

Why are you getting so aggresive? I merely replied to your closing remark in a similar vein. Apologies if it was taken in the wrong spirit, it was meant to be jocular.
I have already said I don't know the outcome. Others have posted up how the Lib Dems could benefit and I can see how they might. I could spin any number of ways that the Lib Dems could benefit but it wouldn't prove anything would it? At the end of the day it would only be speculation and opinion wouldn't it?I am not getting aggressive and I am not Alistair Campbell either :greengrin

But I am making the clear point - and I will restate it yet again for the hard of thinking - that there are only three limited options for the Lib Dems and that all of them are likely to end in tears. Yet again, if you think you can argue otherwise, feel free to do so. Otherwise, my advice would be to stop flogging this particular nag. It's dead.

Incidentally, one other poster put up a somewhat fanciful scenario involving Vince Cable and Chris Huhne in cabinet. I scoffed at that one too. So far as I can see, no-one else is leaping to Agree With Nick that the Lib Dems either have a blinder of a hand or seem capable of bluffing it out.

lapsedhibee

11-05-2010, 11:25 AM

what you end up with is perpetually hung parliaments where the Parties with the fewest votes are actually in control.

This is on a par with "Amadou Konte got us in to Europe".

marinello59

11-05-2010, 11:26 AM

I am not getting aggressive and I am not Alistair Campbell either :greengrin

But I am making the clear point - and I will restate it yet again for the hard of thinking - that there are only three limited options for the Lib Dems and that all of them are likely to end in tears. Yet again, if you think you can argue otherwise, feel free to do so. Otherwise, my advice would be to stop flogging this particular nag. It's dead.

Incidentally, one other poster put up a somewhat fanciful scenario involving Vince Cable and Chris Huhne in cabinet. I scoffed at that one too. So far as I can see, no-one else is leaping to Agree With Nick that the Lib Dems either have a blinder of a hand or seem capable of bluffing it out.

Thanks. I appreciate that.:thumbsup:

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 11:27 AM

Incidentally, one other poster put up a somewhat fanciful scenario involving Vince Cable and Chris Huhne in cabinet. I scoffed at that one too. So far as I can see, no-one else is leaping to Agree With Nick that the Lib Dems either have a blinder of a hand or seem capable of bluffing it out.

The Tories have themselves offered the possibility of giving cabinet places to the Lib Dems in the last few days, and these are two senior and respected Lib Dem politicians who would likely get a cabinet place if offered. Can you therefore explain your scoffing or is it just your default position?

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 11:32 AM

Its bizarre. I thought this was quite an enjoyable and educational thread until yourself and onedaysoon started to get all threatened and aggressive:confused: I think you need to relax, or alternatively use the 'ignore' function. Its quite good:greengrin"Threatened and aggressive" - is that code for daring to disagree with some of the pish which has been spouted by some (though by no means all) posters on here?

Politics can be a passionate business. Political debate tends to be a bit rough and tumble. Those posters happy enough to dish it out (and I have looked back at some of your posts), but less happy about getting it back in spades, should maybe take up Origami.

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 11:34 AM

"Threatened and aggressive" - is that code for daring to disagree with some of the pish which has been spouted by some (though by no means all) posters on here?

No, not really, its more code for acting like a bit of a twat:greengrin

marinello59

11-05-2010, 11:35 AM

"Threatened and aggressive" - is that code for daring to disagree with some of the pish which has been spouted by some (though by no means all) posters on here?

Politics can be a passionate business. Political debate tends to be a bit rough and tumble. Those posters happy enough to dish it out (and I have looked back at some of your posts), but less happy about getting it back in spades, should maybe take up Origami.

Calm down, it's only an internet message board.:greengrin

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 11:40 AM

The Tories have themselves offered the possibility of giving cabinet places to the Lib Dems in the last few days, and these are two senior and respected Lib Dem politicians who would likely get a cabinet place if offered. Can you therefore explain your scoffing or is it just your default position?Go back and read my post. The relatively big beasts of the Lib Dems parachuted into Cabinet positions would be a dream outcome for opponents of the Lib Dems, not to mention their coalition partners.

Arrange the words "chalice" and "poison" into a well-known phrase or saying.

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

No, not really, its more code for acting like a bit of a twat:greengrinUnlike politics, twattery does seem to be one topic upon which you are fully qualified to comment by virtue of personal experience. :greengrin

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 11:43 AM

Tell you what - seeing as how I asked first, pointing out the fundamental problem with PR and the difficulty of making a convincing case for its fairness given what is actually happening in the UK at the moment, how about you address that debate rather than deflect discussion on to another one?

Incidentally, I don't recall arguing that FPTP was fair, or even fairer than any other voting system. All have their pros and cons. But it is important to bear in mind that the object of any voting system is less to produce a result which is micro-mathematically exact, more to produce a government which is actually capable of running the country competently and decisively in good times and bad - "strong and stable" seem to be the current buzz words.

I freely admit that with PR, voters can stand back after an Election and say that they got Party representatives exactly in proportion to the share of the vote. But some might argue that such an outcome while neat and tidy is in practical terms no damn use if what you end up with is perpetually hung parliaments where the Parties with the fewest votes are actually in control. Tails wagging the dog are not democratic either.

I dont think there is much doubt that FPTP is inherently less fair than a proportional representative model. Of course there are issues with PR such as extreme parties getting their say and having disproportionate influence however I think that is a price worth paying for a more representative system.

I happen to think this hung parliament has been a good thing in that it has shown in stark detail how ridiculous the current voting system is. I also think you would find that voting patterns would change quite significantly in certain areas where people had confidence in their vote actually counting if they at present actually voted which would IMO result in higher turnouts than at present. The most exciting election in years apparently and only 60% voted which is a joke.

The ideas of parties having to work together is also a good thing IMO in that it could temper some of the excesses which majority politics can bring.

I wouldnt be too sure of the Lib Dems coming out of this has blackly as you paint. It may be that they are able to get some sort of meaningful electoral reform and also perform well in a coalition government why ever not. They appear to have just as and in some cases much more capable people than Labour and Tories can muster. They also may walk away if they cant get what they want and if the sitting government performs abysmally may actually benefit longer term, who knows.

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 11:43 AM

Go back and read my post. The relatively big beasts of the Lib Dems parachuted into Cabinet positions would be a dream outcome for opponents of the Lib Dems, not to mention their coalition partners.

Arrange the words "chalice" and "poison" into a well-known phrase or saying.

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

Unlike politics, twattery does seem to be one topic upon which you are fully qualified to comment by virtue of personal experience. :greengrin

ooooooohh:greengrin:faf: Im leaving this thread, the crayons have left the cot.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 11:50 AM

This is on a par with "Amadou Konte got us in to Europe".No, it's on a par with "23% of voters voted for the Lib Dems, yet their 57 MPs are currently choosing whether Labour or the Tories will govern the country". I don't think any voters "agreed with Nick" quite to that extent.

And the unseemly horse trading which we are currently seeing in the UK is the kind of situation one gets every time in those countries which use full PR. PR gives voters lots of things. But strong, stable government is not one of them.

Not a conclusive argument against PR of course - lots of people seem to think that the math is more important than the outcome.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 12:07 PM

I dont think there is much doubt that FPTP is inherently less fair than a proportional representative model. Of course there are issues with PR such as extreme parties getting their say and having disproportionate influence however I think that is a price worth paying for a more representative system.Well, that's the debate for the country to have really, isn't it? Whether voters prefer "strong, stable Government" or whether they hand the balance of power to the losers, including fringe extremists like the BNP, in the interests of making sure the sums are right, or whether they go for something in between.

I happen to think this hung parliament has been a good thing in that it has shown in stark detail how ridiculous the current voting system is.It has (a) reminded us all how unusual a hung parliament is under FPTP; and (b) demonstrated what we can expect every time under a full PR system.

I also think you would find that voting patterns would change quite significantly in certain areas where people had confidence in their vote actually counting if they at present actually voted which would IMO result in higher turnouts than at present. The most exciting election in years apparently and only 60% voted which is a joke. They probably would, especially in seats where tactical voting to keep one or other of the big parties out is the norm. Whether it would increase turnout is another matter.

The ideas of parties having to work together is also a good thing IMO in that it could temper some of the excesses which majority politics can bring.Experience is more that it produces weak, indecisive government. Depending on which side of the political fence one sits, would the UK have got anything as radical as the NHS or Thatcher's restructuring of British industry under coalition politics?

I wouldnt be too sure of the Lib Dems coming out of this has blackly as you paint. It may be that they are able to get some sort of meaningful electoral reform and also perform well in a coalition government why ever not. They appear to have just as and in some cases much more capable people than Labour and Tories can muster. They also may walk away if they cant get what they want and if the sitting government performs abysmally may actually benefit longer term, who knows.I have explained very clearly why I think that the Lib Dems can only lose out of their present position as kingmakers, whatever they choose to do. I am still waiting for someone to say why I am wrong.

If they deal with the Tories, they will be scourged by a fair chunk of their own members, never mind all those who voted Lib Dem to keep Tories out. If they deal with Labour, the Tory press will crucify them for propping up discredited Labour losers. If they walk away forcing a second election immediately, everyone including the Electorate will deride them as kiddies who aren't ready for the big playground. If the Tories lose patience and form a minority government, when an election eventually comes (sooner rather than later, I reckon) the Lib Dems will be squeezed badly whichever way the majority vote goes.

Beefster

11-05-2010, 12:07 PM

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 12:09 PM

ooooooohh:greengrin:faf: Im leaving this thread, the crayons have left the cot.Cheerio :greengrin

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 12:12 PM

Why does it show up FPTP, where it happens once every 30-40 years, but not PR, where it happens every time?Exactly my point. It is disappointing that so many people seem to think this is about getting the math correct, when it is really about deciding what style of government will serve the UK best.

It is not really a Party political argument either - other than for the Lib Dems, maybe, who stand to gain more seats than at present. Naked political self interest, in other words.

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 12:17 PM

Cheerio :greengrin

See? you can be polite if you try:greengrin

Hibbyradge

11-05-2010, 12:19 PM

I have explained very clearly why I think that the Lib Dems can only lose out of their present position as kingmakers, whatever they choose to do. I am still waiting for someone to say why I am wrong.

The Lib Dems may not get everything they want out of it this time, but even if all they get is AV, the electoral system will have moved and they will look for more the next time this happens which could be in a matter of months.

That's not losing out.

For me, I think the Libs should do a deal with the Tories, allow them to cut services, raise taxes and increase unhappiness for a couple of years and then withdraw their support.

By that time the Tories popularity will be through the floor and Labour will sweep up.

lapsedhibee

11-05-2010, 12:29 PM

No, it's on a par with "23% of voters voted for the Lib Dems, yet their 57 MPs are currently choosing whether Labour or the Tories will govern the country". I don't think any voters "agreed with Nick" quite to that extent.

And the unseemly horse trading which we are currently seeing in the UK is the kind of situation one gets every time in those countries which use full PR. PR gives voters lots of things. But strong, stable government is not one of them.

Not a conclusive argument against PR of course - lots of people seem to think that the math is more important than the outcome.

Lib are not 'choosing who will govern the country' in any sense except that of tabloid headline writers. They are negotiating power structures - in a relatively open fashion following the hung parliament result - in exactly the same way in which Con and Lab cabals negotiate power structures within their parties - normally behind closed doors - following the usual 'decisive' electoral results of your beloved, fetishised, FPTP system.

The way you post, you would think that the way the country had been run since 1974 was some sort of model of competency, decisiveness, openness, honesty, etc etc etc.

I wonder if the 'strong, stable government' phrase will be much heard on the tellybox over the next day or so.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 12:36 PM

The Lib Dems may not get everything they want out of it this time, but even if all they get is AV, the electoral system will have moved and they will look for more the next time this happens which could be in a matter of months.In electoral terms AV doesn't really take the Lib Dems all that much forward, so I personally doubt whether their core support would be mollified by that considering the compromises they will be seen to be making. And not only do I not think we are looking at a hung Parliament next time (though I agree we probably are looking at another election relatively quickly), but Labour and the Tories would go into coalition together before conceding PR. Neither of the two big Parties could sell PR to their MPs, far less their memberships.

That's not losing out.No, I agree - it's not. But the losing out I had in mind will come at the ballot box next time round. I have explained elsewhere the various scenarios in which the Lib Dems are going to be punished for their starring role in the current danse macabre.

For me, I think the Libs should do a deal with the Tories, allow them to cut services, raise taxes and increase unhappiness for a couple of years and then withdraw their support.

By that time the Tories popularity will be through the floor and Labour will sweep up.That is one of the ways in which the Lib Dems could be punished - for being part of a Government responsible for the cuts which we all know are inevitable.

Beefster

11-05-2010, 12:40 PM

The Lib Dems may not get everything they want out of it this time, but even if all they get is AV, the electoral system will have moved and they will look for more the next time this happens which could be in a matter of months.

That's not losing out.

It's been suggested that AV may make an overall majority for one of the two main parties even more likely that FPTP. If so, they'd wouldn't get the chance again for a long, long time.

I'd call that losing out from the Lib Dem's point of view.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 12:50 PM

Lib are not 'choosing who will govern the country' in any sense except that of tabloid headline writers. They are negotiating power structures - in a relatively open fashion following the hung parliament result - in exactly the same way in which Con and Lab cabals negotiate power structures within their parties - normally behind closed doors - following the usual 'decisive' electoral results of your beloved, fetishised, FPTP system.Yes, they are. Whichever way you choose to cut it, what we have here is the UK's third Party which did really badly on Thursday night (coming a poor third behind a Labour Party which as those same tabloid writers keep reminding us got their worst result since Michael Foot) shamelessly horse-trading between the two big Parties to see which of them will give them the most concessions in exchange for propping them up in Government.

Whatever management speak you choose to apply to that - "negotiating power structures" indeed - that is in the eyes of most people "choosing who will govern the country", and doing it in a pretty tawdry manner and without any electoral mandate at that.

The way you post, you would think that the way the country had been run since 1974 was some sort of model of competency, decisiveness, openness, honesty, etc etc etc.What I have done is point out that PR is no more democratic, whatever that means, than FPTP, a system which incidentally I have neither fetishised nor made my beloved but have pointed out that it has actually served the UK pretty well in terms of producing winners able to form effective Governments.

I wonder if the 'strong, stable government' phrase will be much heard on the tellybox over the next day or so.Depends whether Clegg, Cameron and company keep on using it quite so much as they have been doing.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 12:52 PM

See? you can be polite if you try:greengrinThought you'd gone to buy more crayons. :greengrin

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 12:54 PM

Why does it show up FPTP, where it happens once every 30-40 years, but not PR, where it happens every time?

In respect of the percentage of the vote to seats gained this week has IMO shown the current system to be deeply flawed. Whether PR or a derivative of it results in a hung parliament every time I am not sure however dont think it is a bad thing to get parties working together.

Beefster

11-05-2010, 12:57 PM

In respect of the percentage of the vote to seats gained this week has IMO shown the current system to be deeply flawed. Whether PR or a derivative of it results in a hung parliament every time I am not sure however dont think it is a bad thing to get parties working together.

Yet no outrage or clamour for electoral reform over the last 30 years about it.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 12:58 PM

dont think it is a bad thing to get parties working together.Yep, the horse-trading all seems to be going really swimmingly at the moment. :greengrin

Beefster

11-05-2010, 12:59 PM

Yep, the horse-trading all seems to be going really swimmingly at the moment. :greengrin

I've emailed Nick to ask if, no matter who he goes for, he can swing us all free lollipops for the grand opening of the East Stand.

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 01:05 PM

Well, that's the debate for the country to have really, isn't it? Whether voters prefer "strong, stable Government" or whether they hand the balance of power to the losers, including fringe extremists like the BNP, in the interests of making sure the sums are right, or whether they go for something in between.

It has (a) reminded us all how unusual a hung parliament is under FPTP; and (b) demonstrated what we can expect every time under a full PR system.

They probably would, especially in seats where tactical voting to keep one or other of the big parties out is the norm. Whether it would increase turnout is another matter.

Experience is more that it produces weak, indecisive government. Depending on which side of the political fence one sits, would the UK have got anything as radical as the NHS or Thatcher's restructuring of British industry under coalition politics?

I have explained very clearly why I think that the Lib Dems can only lose out of their present position as kingmakers, whatever they choose to do. I am still waiting for someone to say why I am wrong.

If they deal with the Tories, they will be scourged by a fair chunk of their own members, never mind all those who voted Lib Dem to keep Tories out. If they deal with Labour, the Tory press will crucify them for propping up discredited Labour losers. If they walk away forcing a second election immediately, everyone including the Electorate will deride them as kiddies who aren't ready for the big playground. If the Tories lose patience and form a minority government, when an election eventually comes (sooner rather than later, I reckon) the Lib Dems will be squeezed badly whichever way the majority vote goes.

Or a party principled enough to make decisions based on one of their key principles by walking away.

You make alot of assumptions in your post. Strong stable government etc unfortunately strong stable government also led us into an illegal war which we are still paying for both economically and reputationally.

A fairer system which doesnt have to be full PR has IMO worked pretty well in Scotland, where the Liberals were able to get through a few key policies which Labour wouldnt have done and the SNP have been able to get through budgets based on compromise with some of the other parties. Also another form seems to work well in Germany.

You seem a bit obsessed with how Lib Dems will come out looking badly from the discussions I think there is as much chance of the Tories and more probably Labour being punished if they cobble together a coalition and it isnt popular.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 01:07 PM

I've emailed Nick to ask if, no matter who he goes for, he can swing us all free lollipops for the grand opening of the East Stand.I'd certainly Agree With Nick on that one :greengrin

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 01:09 PM

Yet no outrage or clamour for electoral reform over the last 30 years about it.

As much to do with the make up of the media and newspaper industry I reckon though I think I am right in saying Labour in 97 promised the Lib Dems to hold a referendum however that was quickly forgotten when they won a majority. There was obviously an acceptance when the Scottish government was set up that the FPTP system was flawed.

lapsedhibee

11-05-2010, 01:11 PM

Yes, they are. Whichever way you choose to cut it, what we have here is the UK's third Party which did really badly on Thursday night (coming a poor third behind a Labour Party which as those same tabloid writers keep reminding us got their worst result since Michael Foot) shamelessly horse-trading between the two big Parties to see which of them will give them the most concessions in exchange for propping them up in Government.

Whatever management speak you choose to apply to that - "negotiating power structures" indeed - that is in the eyes of most people "choosing who will govern the country", and doing it in a pretty tawdry manner and without any electoral mandate at that.

I don't understand your position here. Your own favoured voting system failed to produce a 'decisive' result and yet you object to the representatives of a 23%-supported party talking to other parties to cobble together some sort of workable government. What would you prefer? The queen should rearrange the results? Keep having FPTP elections, without any variation in the voting system, every day until your preferred result occurs (by which I mean one or the other 'buggins-turn' party getting a decisive majority, as usual)? :dunno:

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 01:23 PM

Or a party principled enough to make decisions based on one of their key principles by walking away.Somehow I doubt it. By their conduct in the negotiations thus far, the Lib Dems have already shown that they are political tarts willing to sell their favours. All which remains is the haggling to see which of their suitors will pay best price and whether that price will be high enough.

You make alot of assumptions in your post. Strong stable government etc unfortunately strong stable government also led us into an illegal war which we are still paying for both economically and reputationally.Better a weak government, then...

A fairer system which doesnt have to be full PR has IMO worked pretty well in Scotland, where the Liberals were able to get through a few key policies which Labour wouldnt have done and the SNP have been able to get through budgets based on compromise with some of the other parties. Also another form seems to work well in Germany.I didn't say that there were no viable alternatives to FPTP - there are. But neither Scotland's system nor the AV referendum on offer would help the Lib Dems much or indeed at all. They are looking primarily for a commitment to PR.

I could argue incidentally about how well the Assisted Places Scheme for the SP has served Scotland. The two coalitions with the Lib Dems were not a raving success and the current minority Government is all smoke and mirrors - barely a school or hospital has been built since 2007 and Holyrood is littered with ditched Manifesto commitments. But that's a whole nother debate and I have no great desire to wake up the Nats from their post-Election hibernation.

You seem a bit obsessed with how Lib Dems will come out looking badly from the discussions I think there is as much chance of the Tories and more probably Labour being punished if they cobble together a coalition and it isnt popular.Oh, don't get me wrong - I think that whichever of the main Parties forms a Government now, if indeed a Government actually gets formed, will face a difficult time. But they will have routes out of their difficulties, not least calling an early Election and seeking a proper mandate. There are however no circumstances in which the Lib Dems can spring free from the consequences of their current situation.

It was not an obsession, just an observation, backed up I thought with fairly sound arguments. Some others seem obsessed with telling me how wrong I am but have not actually produced any coherent counter-arguments.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 01:29 PM

As much to do with the make up of the media and newspaper industry I reckon though I think I am right in saying Labour in 97 promised the Lib Dems to hold a referendum however that was quickly forgotten when they won a majority.Not quite. There was some talk of electoral reform and some informal discussions with the Lib Dems when it looked as though Labour might not secure an overall majority. But in the Labour landslide which followed, the Lib Dems became surplus to requirements and nothing further happened.

There was obviously an acceptance when the Scottish government was set up that the FPTP system was flawed.No, there was a decision that the devolved Parliament was not going to get a voting system which could give any single Party (ie the SNP) an overall majority. Hence the Assisted Places Scheme, which is basically a list top up for the FPTP losers.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 01:37 PM

I don't understand your position here. Your own favoured voting system failed to produce a 'decisive' result and yet you object to the representatives of a 23%-supported party talking to other parties to cobble together some sort of workable government. What would you prefer? The queen should rearrange the results? Keep having FPTP elections, without any variation in the voting system, every day until your preferred result occurs (by which I mean one or the other 'buggins-turn' party getting a decisive majority, as usual)? :dunno:As a pragmatist, I don't object to what is happening. I didn't say I did. I just object to its being dressed up as something which it is not, which is in any way principled, dignified or even democratic. It is horse-trading pure and simple, and the Lib Dems as the biggest loser hold the boss card.

But the current situation rarely happens under FPTP, whereas it is a constant feature of PR elections. So any discussion of the democratic deficit has to address that reality rather than keep banging on about the importance of getting the math correct. Sort of, we can't run the country but the sums add up, so that's all right then.

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 01:37 PM

Not quite. There was some talk of electoral reform and some informal discussions with the Lib Dems when it looked as though Labour might not secure an overall majority. But in the Labour landslide which followed, the Lib Dems became surplus to requirements and nothing further happened.

No, there was an decision that the devolved Parliament was not going to get a voting system which could give any single Party (ie the SNP) an overall majority. Hence the Assisted Places Scheme, which is basically a list top up for the FPTP losers.

First point wrong, their manifesto was committed to a referendum. An inquiry was held which looked into Electoral Reform and no referendum took place.

Second point, by implication agreeing FPTP was flawed.

JimBHibees

11-05-2010, 01:43 PM

Somehow I doubt it. By their conduct in the negotiations thus far, the Lib Dems have already shown that they are political tarts willing to sell their favours. All which remains is the haggling to see which of their suitors will pay best price and whether that price will be high enough.

They are trying to strike the best deal for themselves just like all the parties and why shouldnt they. No better or worse than others.

Better a weak government, then...

It isnt about being weak or strong. More effective or ineffective, no doubt majority governments have been both as have in other countries more PR systems however I think there is a useful safeguard in PR goverments for more extreme policies

I didn't say that there were no viable alternatives to FPTP - there are. But neither Scotland's system nor the AV referendum on offer would help the Lib Dems much or indeed at all. They are looking primarily for a commitment to PR.

I could argue incidentally about how well the Assisted Places Scheme for the SP has served Scotland. The two coalitions with the Lib Dems were not a raving succes and the current minority Government is all smoke and mirrors - barely a school or hospital has been built since 2007 and Holyrood is littered with ditched Manifesto commitments. But that's a whole nother debate and I have no great desire to wake up the Nats from their post-Election hibernation.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I think that whichever of the main Parties forms a Government now, if indeed a Government actually gets formed, will face a difficult time. But they will have routes out of their difficulties, not least calling an early Election and seeking a proper mandate. There are however no circumstances in which the Lib Dems can spring free from the consequences of their current situation.

It was not an obsession, just an observation, backed up I thought with fairly sound arguments. Some others seem obsessed with telling me how wrong I am but have not actually produced any coherent counter-arguments.

I just dont see hjow they are more or less likely to come out of this worse than the other parties.

see above

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 02:10 PM

They are trying to strike the best deal for themselves just like all the parties and why shouldnt they. No better or worse than others.So Nick Clegg isn't the Messiah after all then - just another naughty boy playing politics. A posh public school boy who has never had a job outside politics, exploiting the long-established system in all the traditional ways in order to horse trade the best possible deal in a smoke-filled room.

Change that works for you, right enough. Certainly seems to be working for Nick - the keys to the Ministerial Mondeo get ever closer to his grasp ...

It isnt about being weak or strong. More effective or ineffective, no doubt majority governments have been both as have in other countries more PR systems however I think there is a useful safeguard in PR goverments for more extreme policiesI will rephrase my response. Better an ineffective government, then...

I just dont see hjow they are more or less likely to come out of this worse than the other parties.see aboveWell, I have done my best to explain in other posts exactly how they are between a rock and several very hard places.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 02:18 PM

First point wrong, their manifesto was committed to a referendum. An inquiry was held which looked into Electoral Reform and no referendum took place.You may be correct but I'd need to look out the relevant Manifesto. But it was never going to happen anyway. Tory and Labour MPs would have co-operated to bring any Bill down. Not all turkeys are stupid enough to vote for an early Christmas.

Second point, by implication agreeing FPTP was flawed.No, by implication the Labour Government was making damn sure that the SNP would never be able to command the overall majority which they would need to pursue separation. Horses for courses. You could equally argue that the reform of Scotland's local government voting was concerned with fairness when it was in fact the price (far too high a price in my view) for Lib Dem support in the SP.

richard_pitts

11-05-2010, 03:08 PM

As a pragmatist, I don't object to what is happening. I didn't say I did. I just object to its being dressed up as something which it is not, which is in any way principled, dignified or even democratic. It is horse-trading pure and simple, and the Lib Dems as the biggest loser hold the boss card.

But the current situation rarely happens under FPTP, whereas it is a constant feature of PR elections. So any discussion of the democratic deficit has to address that reality rather than keep banging on about the importance of getting the math correct. Sort of, we can't run the country but the sums add up, so that's all right then.

Equally any democratic deficit discussion has to address the fact that Governments often get majorities on less than half the vote under FPTP: Labour in 2002 got a working majority on about 36% of the vote - so 2/3 of the country got a government it didn't want :bitchy: There is no perfect solution, but I am left feeling what is going on now is arguably less worse (I will not say better) than the alternative.

Hibbie0762

11-05-2010, 03:57 PM

Equally any democratic deficit discussion has to address the fact that Governments often get majorities on less than half the vote under FPTP: Labour in 2002 got a working majority on about 36% of the vote - so 2/3 of the country got a government it didn't want :bitchy: There is no perfect solution, but I am left feeling what is going on now is arguably less worse (I will not say better) than the alternative.I can't say I am overly concerned about that. There are reasons why majorities and turnouts vary across the country (and vary vetween rural and urban seats in particular) and they are not all reasons of unfairness, nor indeed easy to overcome by tinkering with the voting system.

It does now look as though one outcome of the current situation is that we are going to get that wider debate not just on PR but on AV and other alternatives to FPTP. I honestly don't believe that most voters are anything like as exercised about Electoral Reform as the Lib Dems and the political chattering classes are, but the prospect of a Referendum and the debate which that will engender may be no bad thing even if I suspect that the final outcome will be the current voting system or something pretty like it.

One final comment - if the voters are as passionately concerned about Electoral Reform as the Lib Dems in particular would have us believe, they had a perfect opportunity to do something about it last Thursday, when there was never a bigger incentive or greater encouragement to vote Lib Dem. The anticipated Clegg Bubble not only failed to materialise but actually deflated. And that was not an anomaly of the electoral system either - there were a stack of seats on the cusp where the merest breath of a LD surge would have taken them, but voters rejected that chance.

On that particular topic therefore, the voters have spoken and their answer is perfectly clear.

Beefster

11-05-2010, 04:28 PM

Betty Boop

11-05-2010, 06:36 PM

Betty Boop

11-05-2010, 06:42 PM

Gordon Brown resigns.

PeeJay

11-05-2010, 06:49 PM

One of the alternatives is that Lib Dems, with a vote never greater than 25%, will be in perpetual government.

As part of a coalition - one embracing greater political consensus perhaps - a principle that has worked for decades in Germany to (generally) great success. So why not give it a go? Generally, outside of the UK, the FPTP system is seen to be democratically outdated, totally inept and inherently unfair, so maybe it is time for a change?

richard_pitts

11-05-2010, 08:55 PM

I can't say I am overly concerned about that. There are reasons why majorities and turnouts vary across the country (and vary vetween rural and urban seats in particular) and they are not all reasons of unfairness, nor indeed easy to overcome by tinkering with the voting system.

It does now look as though one outcome of the current situation is that we are going to get that wider debate not just on PR but on AV and other alternatives to FPTP. I honestly don't believe that most voters are anything like as exercised about Electoral Reform as the Lib Dems and the political chattering classes are, but the prospect of a Referendum and the debate which that will engender may be no bad thing even if I suspect that the final outcome will be the current voting system or something pretty like it.

One final comment - if the voters are as passionately concerned about Electoral Reform as the Lib Dems in particular would have us believe, they had a perfect opportunity to do something about it last Thursday, when there was never a bigger incentive or greater encouragement to vote Lib Dem. The anticipated Clegg Bubble not only failed to materialise but actually deflated. And that was not an anomaly of the electoral system either - there were a stack of seats on the cusp where the merest breath of a LD surge would have taken them, but voters rejected that chance.

On that particular topic therefore, the voters have spoken and their answer is perfectly clear.

I agree with most of that. I argued for a long time within the Lib Dems that they needed to develop a wider policy platform as people voted on economics rather than constitutional issues. One of the reasons I left was because of that.

However, Labour got 36% of the votes cast in the last election and still got an overall majority. At present there is 13% in vote share between the Libs on 23% and the Tories on 35%. One got 9% of the seats, the other got 48%. That is just crazy. If it was happening to someone other than the Lib Dems, it would result in civil unrest :greengrin

I favour alternative vote on the grounds it preserves the link between MP and constituency whilst introducing a greater degree of proportionality. Also every commission on voting reform has recommended it in one form or another.

As for the "rainbow coalition" idea, you need to read "A House Divided" by David Steel on the Lib-Lab pact between Steel and Callaghan in 1979 to guage what an utter nightmare that would be. The Steel effort lasted about four months and was basically an exercise in cobbling together votes at every turn. In this election, the only show in town was the Tories and it would be a strange party which advocated PR and then refused to try and make a hung parliament scenario work.

Politics is a fluid game and I take the view that the ground can shift so fast that it's all to play for - as much as you can throw up disaster scenarios, there is always a counter. If the Lib Dems do well in their posts for example, they sell the message to a wider audience that they can govern. Vince Cable for example in a Treasury role would most likely show up Osborne. Indeed one of the main reasons for Labour's 1945 breakthrough was that they had shown they could hold office in the Government of National Unity :wink:

Part/Time Supporter

11-05-2010, 08:57 PM

One of the alternatives is that Lib Dems, with a vote never greater than 25%, will be in perpetual government.

Folk said that about them in Scotland.

One Day Soon

11-05-2010, 09:36 PM

I have met Ed Balls, I have seen him speak at an academic, non-partisan conference, and I have read a number of his policy papers when he was working for the Treasury. He was the architect of a number of New Labour's most progressive social policies, including the New Deal, and most importantly, he is seen by many of the Left of the Labour Party as the 'torch-bearer' for pre-Blair, if not exactly Old Labour beliefs. He has also referred to himself many times as a 'socialist'.

Try to read a little more and go on the verbal attack a little less, especially when you are debating something you dont know much about. You might actually learn something:faf:

There is so much delusion and inaccuracy there that its hard to know where to begin.

He is seen by the vast majority of the left and the right of the Labour Party as the fastest ticket to complete oblivion. The only way you could conclude that he is seen as "the torch-bearer for pre-Blair, if not exactly Old Labour beliefs." would be if you were in fact Ed Balls. Are you Ed Balls? You certainly seem to have his knack for making it up as he goes along.

And what on earth are "pre-Blair, if not exactly Old Labour beliefs"?

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 09:39 PM

There is so much delusion and inaccuracy there that its hard to know where to begin.

He is seen by the vast majority of the left and the right of the Labour Party as the fastest ticket to complete oblivion. The only way you could conclude that he is seen as "the torch-bearer for pre-Blair, if not exactly Old Labour beliefs." would be if you were in fact Ed Balls. Are you Ed Balls? You certainly seem to have his knack for making it up as he goes along.

And what on earth are "pre-Blair, if not exactly Old Labour beliefs"?

No, I'm not Ed Balls. You're wrong, as usual.

I shouldnt even bother engaging with you, but in the interests of debate-Ken Livingstone tonight described Balls as a 'likely candidate from the labour left' as did The Guardian, who referred to his likely support from the 'unions and old labour'. I've met the guy, talked to him, seen him speak, read some of his policy documents in a professional capacity. What experience and knowledge can you bring to bear to contradict my view, the Guardians view and Ken Livingstone's view?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gallery/2010/may/10/labour-leadership-candidates?picture=362471110

hibsbollah

11-05-2010, 10:21 PM

Incidentally, one other poster put up a somewhat fanciful scenario involving Vince Cable and Chris Huhne in cabinet. I scoffed at that one too. So far as I can see, no-one else is leaping to Agree With Nick that the Lib Dems either have a blinder of a hand or seem capable of bluffing it out.

Reports at 9.30 suggest Cable and Huhne both to be given Cabinet jobs; cable as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. :greengrin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/11/general-election-2010-live-blog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/11/general-election-2010-live-blog)

If this report is proved to be correct tomorrow morning, i'll expect you to be full of remorse and to provide me with a full and frank apology:thumbsup:

One Day Soon

11-05-2010, 10:44 PM

heretoday

11-05-2010, 10:52 PM

It's Balls v the Milibands. They both look a bit goofy so I'm going for the Boy Named Sue.

His wife looks a bit dotty. Is she ok?

One Day Soon

11-05-2010, 10:54 PM

It's Balls v the Milibands. They both look a bit goofy so I'm going for the Boy Named Sue.

His wife looks a bit dotty. Is she ok?

She's fine, its her husband who should be representing the constituency of Barking.

Beefster

12-05-2010, 05:45 AM

It's Balls v the Milibands. They both look a bit goofy so I'm going for the Boy Named Sue.

His wife looks a bit dotty. Is she ok?

While I'm desperately hoping for Balls to get the job, it's unlikely. He's managed to turn a safe seat into a marginal and Labour couldn't afford the embarrassment of a Leader losing his seat. Unless they parachute him into a safe seat for the next election.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 07:25 AM

Reports at 9.30 suggest Cable and Huhne both to be given Cabinet jobs; cable as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. :greengrin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/11/general-election-2010-live-blog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/11/general-election-2010-live-blog)

If this report is proved to be correct tomorrow morning, i'll expect you to be full of remorse and to provide me with a full and frank apology:thumbsup:This was one of my earlier posts:

"Vince Cable and Chis Huhne as Ministers - oh, yes please. Voters will quickly find out that there is quite a difference between pontificating from the moral high ground on what the other lot are doing wrong and having to implement hard choices in order to put it right. The other consequence of Lib Dem involvement is that they quickly lose their "political outsiders" myth, which is entirely bogus anyway"

I think that makes pretty clear my view that Lib Dems in senior posts in a coalition Government is a consummation devoutly to be wished both by their opponents and indeed their coalition partners. But at no stage did I ever say that part of the Beige Mercenaries' price for propping up a coalition would not be senior cabinet jobs. Given the Lib Dems' naked pursuit of power in other such negotiations (eg the SP), I would have to button up the back to think otherwise, and I assure you that (unlike yourself I suspect), I do not button up the back.

So please explain to me why I should feel any sort of remorse for being correct, or owe you any sort of apology at all, far less a full and frank one.

Other than that, please don't bother me again.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 07:34 AM

I agree with most of that. I argued for a long time within the Lib Dems that they needed to develop a wider policy platform as people voted on economics rather than constitutional issues. One of the reasons I left was because of that.

However, Labour got 36% of the votes cast in the last election and still got an overall majority. At present there is 13% in vote share between the Libs on 23% and the Tories on 35%. One got 9% of the seats, the other got 48%. That is just crazy. If it was happening to someone other than the Lib Dems, it would result in civil unrest :greengrin

I favour alternative vote on the grounds it preserves the link between MP and constituency whilst introducing a greater degree of proportionality. Also every commission on voting reform has recommended it in one form or another.

As for the "rainbow coalition" idea, you need to read "A House Divided" by David Steel on the Lib-Lab pact between Steel and Callaghan in 1979 to guage what an utter nightmare that would be. The Steel effort lasted about four months and was basically an exercise in cobbling together votes at every turn. In this election, the only show in town was the Tories and it would be a strange party which advocated PR and then refused to try and make a hung parliament scenario work.

Politics is a fluid game and I take the view that the ground can shift so fast that it's all to play for - as much as you can throw up disaster scenarios, there is always a counter. If the Lib Dems do well in their posts for example, they sell the message to a wider audience that they can govern. Vince Cable for example in a Treasury role would most likely show up Osborne. Indeed one of the main reasons for Labour's 1945 breakthrough was that they had shown they could hold office in the Government of National Unity :wink:I admire your optimistic analysis but fear that you may be deluded. Certainly so far as Scotland is concerned, the view already emerging is that the Tories, now with 12 Westminster seats, have that Scottish mandate at last. I wouldn't like to be a Lib Dem going into next year's SP Elections - shooting fish in a barrel won't come into it. There are now no credible reasons for voting LD in Scotland, and I suspect a lot fewer reasons south of the border either.

Danny Alexander's punishment for the poor LD performance in Scotland is to be made Scottish Secretary (a post, ironically, for the abolition of which he was arguing during the campaign). I somehow don't think he is going to find it very comfortable.

bighairyfaeleith

12-05-2010, 07:34 AM

It should be ed balls just so we can have a Prime Minister Balls :greengrin

Yeah I know I have the mental age of 3 year old:wink:

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 07:42 AM

No, I'm not Ed Balls.No, you're probably not. Just talking balls as usual.

What experience and knowledge can you bring to bear to contradict my view, the Guardians view and Ken Livingstone's view?Oh, the Guardian's view? Well, they've been really on the money is this Election campaign haven't they? A lot of us are waiting for their grovelling full page apology for getting it so spectacularly wrong on the Lib Dems.

richard_pitts

12-05-2010, 07:47 AM

I admire your optimistic analysis but fear that you may be deluded. Certainly so far as Scotland is concerned, the view already emerging is that the Tories, now with 12 Westminster seats, have that Scottish mandate at last. I wouldn't like to be a Lib Dem going into next year's SP Elections - shooting ducks in a barrel won't come into it. There are now no credible reasons for voting LD in Scotland, and I suspect a lot fewer reasons south of the border either.

Danny Alexander's punishment for the poor LD performance in Scotland is to be made Scottish Secretary (a post, ironically, for the abolition of which he was arguing during the campaign). I somehow don't think he is going to find it very comfortable.

Don't know about optimistic, just putting the alternative out there and pointing out that things like this aren't set in stone and what looks to be the case now, may not be the case in six months. Government will not be comfortable for the Libs and it will be a growing and painful experience to say the least for a lot of the people involved.

One of the interesting things about this election is everyone got the result they didn't want - Labour was ousted, Tories didn't get an overall majority and the Lib Dems had to form a coalition with the Tories when they have always aimed to do so with Labour :faf:

As for the Scottish elections, most of the lib dem seats have the Tories as the main challenger e.g. North East Fife, the Border seats, Edinburgh West. If there were a lot of Lib Dem / Labour marginals or SNP it might be a different story, although no party in Scotland is exactly setting the heather on fire right now.

Danny Alexander is someone I really rate and like personally so I am delighted for him, so I guess I'm biased. I can also say the same about a few of the people across the people across the political spectrum. Europe is more likely to be a deal-breaker on the grounds the Lib Dems are all raving Euro federalists and now they are in a coalition with William Hague :faf:

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 08:05 AM

Government will not be comfortable for the Libs and it will be a growing and painful experience to say the least for a lot of the people involved.You are 100% correct there.

the Lib Dems had to form a coalition with the Tories when they have always aimed to do so with Labour :faf:Experience shows that the LDs will form a coalition with pretty well anyone for a sniff at power. It it hard to regard as principled a Party which is more an all-weather campaign machine (if a very effective one) than anything else, and which will go into coalition with Labour in the SP, Nats in Edinburgh and Tories at Westminster. The lasting impression is that they are a bunch of mercenaries. Single Transferable Principles.

As for the Scottish elections, most of the lib dem seats have the Tories as the main challenger e.g. North East Fife, the Border seats, Edinburgh West. If there were a lot of Lib Dem / Labour marginals or SNP it might be a different storyI would have thought that was the main concern for LDs. If one supports the Tories, then vote for the real thing. If one opposes the Tories, not much point in voting LD. If any LD thinks that because they are now in coalition with the Tories they will be either trusted or respected by them ... or indeed that Tories in LD seats will now vote for them as "one of us" ...

no party in Scotland is exactly setting the heather on fire right nowLabour actually did not too badly on Thursday night - started with 39 seats, finished with 41. Took back our Glasgow East seat from the Nats and our Dunfermline seat from the LDs with whopping majorities. And a whopping share of the vote as well, for all those born-again Electoral Reformists out there. A long fight ahead admittedly, but in Scotland at least we start off in reasonably rude health.

Danny Alexander is someone I really rate and like personally so I am delighted for himIf he was a friend of mine, I'd be sending him a commiserations card this morning :greengrin

Europe is more likely to be a deal-breaker on the grounds the Lib Dems are all raving Euro federalists and now they are in a coalition with William Hague :faf:There are any number of deal-breakers, these Parties are not natural bedfellows. And the LDs are not exactly renowned for their Parliamentary discipline so Cleggy better select his LD whips carefully :greengrin

hibsbollah

12-05-2010, 08:05 AM

No, you're probably not. Just talking balls as usual.

Oh, the Guardian's view? Well, they've been really on the money is this Election campaign haven't they? A lot of us are waiting for their grovelling full page apology for getting it so spectacularly wrong on the Lib Dems.

You might not like The Guardian but are you saying they've made it up?:faf:

Lets face it, you're clearly a very tribal type of political person, who is very threatened by the complete unpredictability of what is going on. No political commentator around can possibily foresee whats going to happen over the next few months of coalition. But instead of accepting this, you make ludicrous predictions and then attack and abuse anyone who has the temerity to suggest you just might be wrong:rolleyes: Cable has got a cabinet post, you thought this was hilarious yesterday when I suggested it and got bizarrely aggressive, and now you've been proved wrong less than 24 hours later and won't even acknowledge it:faf:

Really pathetic.

hibsbollah

12-05-2010, 08:12 AM

This was one of my earlier posts:

"Vince Cable and Chis Huhne as Ministers - oh, yes please. Voters will quickly find out that there is quite a difference between pontificating from the moral high ground on what the other lot are doing wrong and having to implement hard choices in order to put it right. The other consequence of Lib Dem involvement is that they quickly lose their "political outsiders" myth, which is entirely bogus anyway"
I think that makes pretty clear my view that Lib Dems in senior posts in a coalition Government is a consummation devoutly to be wished both by their opponents and indeed their coalition partners. But at no stage did I ever say that part of the Beige Mercenaries' price for propping up a coalition would not be senior cabinet jobs. Given the Lib Dems' naked pursuit of power in other such negotiations (eg the SP), I would have to button up the back to think otherwise, and I assure you that (unlike yourself I suspect), I do not button up the back.

So please explain to me why I should feel any sort of remorse for being correct, or owe you any sort of apology at all, far less a full and frank one.

Other than that, please don't bother me again.

As you know perfectly well, it was the previous paragraph to that in which you said the idea was 'fanciful'. You're quoting a section of what you said that has no relevance to your spectacular 'wrongness' in a pathetic attempt to attempt to wriggle out of it. Keep going, you're actually quite funny.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 08:21 AM

You might not like The Guardian but are you saying they've made it up?:faf:Where did I say that I didn't like the Guardian? Or did you just make that up? As is happens I remain a long-time Graun reader. But far be it for me to obscure your tribal prejudices with the facts.

Lets face it, you're clearly a very tribal type of political person, who is very threatened by the complete unpredictability of what is going on.Let's face it, you're clearly a very stupid type of person (I hesitate to say political - your posts tend to suggest that what you understand about politics could go on the back of a postage stamp) who is very threatened by anyone who dares to contradict your mainly absurd pronouncements.

Cable has got a cabinet post, you thought this was hilarious yesterday when I suggested it and got bizarrely aggressiveNo, I did not say that, I said that such an outcome was a dream for the LD's opponents. I quoted exactly what I said above. Can't you read properly either?

Really pathetic.Indeed you are. Indeed you are. Now away back to the sandpit, the other kiddies are taking all the buckets and spades.

hibsbollah

12-05-2010, 08:26 AM

Where did I say that I didn't like the Guardian? Or did you just make that up? As is happens I remain a long-time Graun reader. But far be it for me to obscure your tribal prejudices with the facts.

Let's face it, you're clearly a very stupid type of person (I hesitate to say political - your posts tend to suggest that what you understand about politics could go on the back of a postage stamp) who is very threatened by anyone who dares to contradict your mainly absurd pronouncements.

No, I did not say that, I said that such an outcome was a dream for the LD's opponents. I quoted exactly what I said above. Can't you read properly either?

Indeed you are. Indeed you are. Now away back to the sandpit, the other kiddies are taking all the buckets and spades.

:faf:
I despair.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 08:30 AM

As you know perfectly well, it was the previous paragraph to that in which you said the idea was 'fanciful'. You're quoting a section of what you said that has no relevance to your spectacular 'wrongness' in a pathetic attempt to attempt to wriggle out of it. Keep going, you're actually quite funny.If you are going to misquote me, at least misquote me in context. I actually referred in the post in question to a "fantastical scenario", that scenario being your claim that:

"it is also possible that a coalition Govt involving the Lib Dems could achieve actual policy success in Government".

It was not and could in no way be construed by anyone with the most elementary of reading skills as a reference to which LDs might get posts in a coalition. If you can't up your reading and comprehension skills significantly, please do not bother me again. I have better things to do than continually correct your misinterpretations of what I have posted.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 08:34 AM

:faf:
I despair.Run out of spurious arguments, have we? :devil:

hibsbollah

12-05-2010, 08:35 AM

If you are going to misquote me, at least misquote me in context. I actually referred in the post in question to a "fantastical scenario", that scenario being your claim that:

"it is also possible that a coalition Govt involving the Lib Dems could achieve actual policy success in Government".
It was not and could in no way be construed by anyone with the most elementary of reading skills as a reference to which LDs might get posts in a coalition. If you can't up your reading and comprehension skills significantly, please do not bother me again. I have better things to do than continually correct your misinterpretations of what I have posted.

Can you read and comprehend this?;

"Incidentally, one other poster put up a somewhat fanciful scenario involving Vince Cable and Chris Huhne in cabinet. I scoffed at that one too. So far as I can see, no-one else is leaping to Agree With Nick that the Lib Dems either have a blinder of a hand or seem capable of bluffing it out."

Its very clear what you were saying. You have no class a) not to acknowledge it and b) to resort to your usual blind, thrashing abuse. I actually pity you.

---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------

Run out of spurious arguments, have we? :devil:

Just sick of your lies and deceit.

marinello59

12-05-2010, 08:49 AM

A fairly robust and interesting debate here. Please don't resort to personal abuse though, the last thing we want to be doing is deleting posts.
Thanks.:thumbsup:

Betty Boop

12-05-2010, 08:58 AM

I think Labour will regroup and come back stronger. A spell as opposition will do them good IMO, they should ditch the New Labour project and go back to their roots, and with a new leader see where that takes them. (although Balls or the two Millibands doesn't do it for me). :greengrin

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 09:09 AM

Can you read and comprehend this?;

"Incidentally, one other poster put up a somewhat fanciful scenario involving Vince Cable and Chris Huhne in cabinet. I scoffed at that one too. So far as I can see, no-one else is leaping to Agree With Nick that the Lib Dems either have a blinder of a hand or seem capable of bluffing it out."

Its very clear what you were saying. You have no class a) not to acknowledge it and b) to resort to your usual blind, thrashing abuse. I actually pity you.

---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------

Just sick of your lies and deceit.You are a very sad person.

I made it crystal clear to which fantastical/fanciful scenario I was referring. It should be clear to anyone but a total cretin (fill in the blanks yourself here) from reading my posts in their entirely - as opposed to picking out the bits which fit with your pedantic and pointless obsession - to which fantastical/fanciful scenario I was referring.

It is equally clear to anyone who had been following sequentially my many contributions to this thread - and that certainly includes you as my personal stalker - that not only could I foresee senior LDs in Government (and that has to include the likes of Clegg, Cable, Huhne - there aren't very many LDs who are at all well known) but that it would be yet another gift to their opponents and was much to be desired.

Now stop straw-clutching and go away. You really have nothing sensible to contribute to this. You don't even do personal abuse very amusingly or convincingly.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 09:12 AM

A fairly robust and interesting debate here. Please don't resort to personal abuse though, the last thing we want to be doing is deleting posts.
Thanks.:thumbsup:I was provoked, Guv. But I will try to contain my irritation better from now on. You can't really argue with a sick mind anyway. :greengrin

hibsbollah

12-05-2010, 09:16 AM

You can't really argue with a sick mind anyway. :greengrin

...and so it continues:rolleyes:
He's on my ignore list now, so hopefully this will be put to bed.

marinello59

12-05-2010, 09:33 AM

I was provoked, Guv. But I will try to contain my irritation better from now on. You can't really argue with a sick mind anyway. :greengrin

Is there really any need for that after I ask for people to avoid personal abuse? Please don't complain when posts start getting deleted. Politics provokes robust debate so things have been allowed to run but a wee bit of co-operation when we ask that people adhere to the forum rules would be appreciated.
Thanks.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 09:41 AM

Is there really any need for that after I ask for people to avoid personal abuse? Please don't complain when posts start getting deleted. Politics provokes robust debate so things have been allowed to run but a wee bit of co-operation when we ask that people adhere to the forum rules would be appreciated.
Thanks.Point taken and apologies.

JimBHibees

12-05-2010, 10:28 AM

While I'm desperately hoping for Balls to get the job, it's unlikely. He's managed to turn a safe seat into a marginal and Labour couldn't afford the embarrassment of a Leader losing his seat. Unless they parachute him into a safe seat for the next election.

Got to be said out of the potential Labour challengers the only one that I would have time for was Alan Johnston unfortunately he has stepped aside for one of the Miliband brothers. Dear oh dear. Personally cant bear Ed Balls given some of his answer avoiding performances on tv particularly a recent Question time where he was singularly appalling IMO.

JimBHibees

12-05-2010, 10:34 AM

As part of a coalition - one embracing greater political consensus perhaps - a principle that has worked for decades in Germany to (generally) great success. So why not give it a go? Generally, outside of the UK, the FPTP system is seen to be democratically outdated, totally inept and inherently unfair, so maybe it is time for a change?

Completely agree, I think other forms of electoral system have been proven to work elsewhere, why not in the UK to get rid of the boring 2 party monopoly.

---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 AM ----------

You are a very sad person.

I made it crystal clear to which fantastical/fanciful scenario I was referring. It should be clear to anyone but a total cretin (fill in the blanks yourself here) from reading my posts in their entirely - as opposed to picking out the bits which fit with your pedantic and pointless obsession - to which fantastical/fanciful scenario I was referring.

It is equally clear to anyone who had been following sequentially my many contributions to this thread - and that certainly includes you as my personal stalker - that not only could I foresee senior LDs in Government (and that has to include the likes of Clegg, Cable, Huhne - there aren't very many LDs who are at all well known) but that it would be yet another gift to their opponents and was much to be desired.

Now stop straw-clutching and go away. You really have nothing sensible to contribute to this. You don't even do personal abuse very amusingly or convincingly.

Dear oh dear is this the attitude of the current Labour party, absolutely appalling.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 10:50 AM

Dear oh dear is this the attitude of the current Labour party, absolutely appalling.I can't speak for the whole of the Scottish Labour Party, but it is certainly my attitude. I am open to hearing why you think it is so appalling.

JimBHibees

12-05-2010, 11:06 AM

I can't speak for the whole of the Scottish Labour Party, but it is certainly my attitude. I am open to hearing why you think it is so appalling.

Where do you start aggressive, personally abusive, disrespectful etc

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 11:18 AM

Where do you start aggressive, personally abusive, disrespectful etcIt wasn't any of those things to you personally though, was it? It was clearly directed at an individual poster and the latest instalment in a long-running spat. Plus the other poster was frankly giving as good as he got.

I have publicly apologised on here for my immoderation of expression, though not for my actual political opinions and analysis, by which I am quite happy to stand. OK?

Dinkydoo

12-05-2010, 11:45 AM

Slightly off topic but I would have preferred a "None of the above" option on my voting card since neither Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems, SNP or Scottish Green have particularly interested/excited me with thier political broadcasts in the run up to the election.

I thought about putting an X in every box (spoiled vote) because I still wanted to use my vote but decided that it would have been a waste of time (mind you if enough people did it) - I ended up tactically voting for Labour in a bid to keep the torries out.......:boo hoo: :faf:

Coalition is better IMO than a Conservative governement; they won't be able to do exactly as they like.

heretoday

12-05-2010, 12:20 PM

I think Labour will come back stronger. I hope they ditch the "New" tag from their name.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 12:25 PM

I think Labour will come back stronger. I hope they ditch the "New" tag from their name.The rebuilding starts from a pretty sound base both in Scotland and in local government in the rest of the country.

Now that the Lib Dems after decades of facing both ways have finally been forced out of the closet, we may be seeing a return to two Party politics. :greengrin

heretoday

12-05-2010, 01:41 PM

Maybe Labour should try and ditch the Mandelson/Campbell connection as well. It reeks of Machiavelli.

I suppose they'd only go and replace them with someone equally as ghastly.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 01:58 PM

Maybe Labour should try and ditch the Mandelson/Campbell connection as well. It reeks of Machiavelli.

I suppose they'd only go and replace them with someone equally as ghastly.Niccolo Machiavelli was much misunderstood. :greengrin

richard_pitts

12-05-2010, 02:07 PM

You are 100% correct there.

Experience shows that the LDs will form a coalition with pretty well anyone for a sniff at power. It it hard to regard as principled a Party which is more an all-weather campaign machine (if a very effective one) than anything else, and which will go into coalition with Labour in the SP, Nats in Edinburgh and Tories at Westminster. The lasting impression is that they are a bunch of mercenaries. Single Transferable Principles.

Bit OTT there. Given that you live in Edinburgh South I am left wondering what Fred MacIntosh did to you!!:greengrin I await the "Fred MacIntosh ate my hamster" thread with interest. Reality is there are Councils in England where the Tories and Labour have formed coalitions. The Scottish Libs were also offered a coalition with the SNP and knocked it back. The stupid tram project is another thread in itself re Edinburgh Council.

I would have thought that was the main concern for LDs. If one supports the Tories, then vote for the real thing. If one opposes the Tories, not much point in voting LD. If any LD thinks that because they are now in coalition with the Tories they will be either trusted or respected by them ... or indeed that Tories in LD seats will now vote for them as "one of us" ...

It would certainly make the Tories easier to squeeze in a marginal and in any case, a Scottish election is a very different animal. Nobody has really done much to generate any interest.

Labour actually did not too badly on Thursday night - started with 39 seats, finished with 41. Took back our Glasgow East seat from the Nats and our Dunfermline seat from the LDs with whopping majorities. And a whopping share of the vote as well, for all those born-again Electoral Reformists out there. A long fight ahead admittedly, but in Scotland at least we start off in reasonably rude health.

Fairy nuff. Again though, the electorate is capable of distinguishing between a Scottish election and a Westminster one. Still lots to play for imo, as nobody has really offered anything particularly dynamic. I'm very much a floating voter nowadays and I don't find anyone inspiring.

[/QUOTE]If he was a friend of mine, I'd be sending him a commiserations card this morning :greengrin[/QUOTE]

What? To commiserate Danny Alexander on becoming one of the first Liberal Cabinet ministers since the days of Lloyd ruddy George?! :confused: As I said before there is a lot to play for, and what we hope for may not necessarily come true.

You appear to be wishing the Lib Dems some sort of biblical plague involving Mad Vlad and Fatty Foulkes :faf:whereas all I'm saying is that it's not cut and dried. The SNP's prediction of devolution as a short step on the road to independence doesn't show any prospect of happening soon, and neither does the end of the SNP which was also predicted at the dawn of the Scottish Parliament for example.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 02:35 PM

Bit OTT there. Given that you live in Edinburgh South I am left wondering what Fred MacIntosh did to you!!:greengrin I await the "Fred MacIntosh ate my hamster" thread with interest. Reality is there are Councils in England where the Tories and Labour have formed coalitions. The Scottish Libs were also offered a coalition with the SNP and knocked it back. The stupid tram project is another thread in itself re Edinburgh Council.Nothing personal, but given my long experience of campaigning against Lib Dems, it is anything but OTT. Compared to the views of some of my Labour (and indeed Tory) friends, my assessment is actually pretty mild. It always mystifies activists from other Parties how the LDs manage to sustain that "nice Party" image when they are such unscrupulous, unprincipled campaigners - no gutter too low.

I will refrain from saying anything about Fred in case I end up in court. Libel law still applies on these forums. Suffice to say that few of his opponents were shedding tears for him on Friday morning. No, Fred hasn't eaten my hamster - yet - but I am keeping its cage well away from him just in case.

I think that there is one such Council, but the LDs are a perpetual partner in search of a coalition - any coalition. And of course the LDs knocked back a coalition with the Nats, that would have been writing their own suicide note. Don't think I mentioned the trams and probably better to keep it that way. :greengrin

It would certainly make the Tories easier to squeeze in a marginal and in any case, a Scottish election is a very different animal. Nobody has really done much to generate any interest.Genuine voter anger seems to be building about the LDs' deal with the Tories, the overall feeling being that it was not what they voted for. Given that the LDs' Scottish vote in particular contains a fair proportion of Labour votes harvested on the back of opposition to the Iraq war ... well, you can see where that is going in terms of next time round, I am sure.

Fairy nuff. Again though, the electorate is capable of distinguishing between a Scottish election and a Westminster one. Still lots to play for imo, as nobody has really offered anything particularly dynamic. I'm very much a floating voter nowadays and I don't find anyone inspiring.Yes, there is but I doubt that is going to help the Lib Dem cause. This week's events will be pretty fresh in voters' memories and all the other Parties will not be letting them forget either.

What? To commiserate Danny Alexander on becoming one of the first Liberal Cabinet ministers since the days of Lloyd ruddy George?! :confused: As I said before there is a lot to play for, and what we hope for may not necessarily come true.Nah, he is Scottish Secretary - he himself described it during the Election as a non-job which should be scrapped. And he is going to be Clegg's man in Scotland rather than Scotland's man in the Cameroons. He won't have many friends.

You appear to be wishing the Lib Dems some sort of biblical plague involving Mad Vlad and Fatty FoulkesNothing that benign. They deserve real, lingering suffering :devil:

The SNP's prediction of devolution as a short step on the road to independence doesn't show any prospect of happening soon, and neither does the end of the SNP which was also predicted at the dawn of the Scottish Parliament for example.Fair enough, and I am not saying that anything in politics is 100% predictable. But I am willing to bet that none of it will be good for our Beige friends, especially in Scotland.

khib70

12-05-2010, 02:38 PM

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 02:52 PM

How entertaining it is to see and hear the vein-bulging rage, and hysterical doomsaying of the Labour faithful on here.

The old "no mandate in Scotland for the Tories" garbage makes a return as well. Hello!!! You lost the election. A UK election. That's the same UK that the Labour party has defended by every devious and underhand means at his disposal against the Nationalist "separatists" The same UK that a Labour government protected by indulging in Stalin/Goebbels like suppression of the true economic facts about North Sea oil.

And the same Labour party whose leaders preferred a Tory government (Thatcher's Tory government FFS) to a Scottish Parliament.

The same Labour party who formed several UK governments with a minority of votes (no mandate?) in England, thanks to their clutch of Scottish rotten boroughs.

The same Labour party that Scots vote for with knee-jerk predictability in every election. "Whit's the name o thon monkey in the red shirt again?". The tribal vote troops out despite years of Labour taking them for granted and lying and dissembling out of their terror that any kind of Scottish autonomy might threaten their undemocratic UK majority. And despite generations of incompetent, nepotistic, corrupt, freeloading Labour councils continually reelected by the faithful trooping into the polls on 25% turnouts.

It's never nice when your team loses, but some of the reaction on here is just miles OTT. I despair for sensible debate on here when someone can in all seriousness call David Cameron a "bigoted racist". I despair for it when half the arguments advanced are based on what schools people went to. Going to a comprehensive is a guarantee of political virtue then, is it? Shallow inverted snobbery.

Cameron bears about as much resemblance to Thatcher as Brown does to Keir Hardie. There's a good chance that he might bring about a society where the state butts out of people's lives, and those who want to make things better for themselves aren't stifled by bureaucracy and regulation.
He might not, but it's just as likely as the idea that he will immediately order the slaughter of the firstborn, and burn people at the stake for being working class.

Time will tell. If he does succeed , maybe the crooked Labour hegemony in Scotland will start to crumble. I hope so.You seem to be indulging in a fair bit of vein-bulging yourself. I don't know who on the Labour side has been indulging in the "no mandate in Scotland" stuff - it is hardly a line Labour would play even if we thought we could sustain it, given our derision when the SNP try to play that flawed card. 85% of Scots voted for Unionist Parties and there is no arguing with that hard fact, though King Smug was still giving it his best shot to anyone who would listen.

Nor am I aware of any Labour supporters who are saying anything other than that we lost fair and square on Thursday - there was certainly no enthusiasm for any Lib-Lab coalition on here, far less one involving the Nats. That would have been wholly unsustainable, and Labour worthy after Labour worthy has been standing up to say so.

Usual nonsense about Labour tribalism as well. At 46% of the popular vote, it is obviously a pretty wide-ranging tribe. Not a very smart tactic to blame the stupidity of the Electorate for having the temerity not to vote for you. Never win hearts and minds that way.

But you're correct - it's never nice when your team loses. Some just accept it with better grace than others.

bighairyfaeleith

12-05-2010, 02:52 PM

Dashing Bob S

12-05-2010, 02:53 PM

As much as I'd like to see the Labour Party turn back to some sense of their radical roots, it isn't going to happen. Society has changed and so has politics, with the dash for the centre ground being important.

It's not going to be about getting a radical party enthusing its traditional bases in Scotland, North England, south Wales, Tyneside, Inner London, West Midlands etc, its going to be a mark 2 party with a Blairite clone, critiquing the Lib-Con alliance, saying only the Liberals have stopped the Tories being Thatcherite, and campaigning against a 'right-wing' alliance, who'll only be doing pretty much what they would do anyway.

I doubt a Con-Lib government will be much different to what Labour would have done in power. Cameron's Tories, the Thatcherite element held in check, and lots of nebulous waffling about a 'big society' to me represents very much a continuation of Blairism.

The interesting thing at the next election will be how the Con and Lib parties try to separate themselves from each in other in campaigning, without trashing the 'achievements' of their government.

For anything to change we need a genuinely inspiring and charismatic figure to emerge, as in Obama in the USA. it's very doubtful whether our political system could produce such a character, or we, as a very conservative nation (for all our conceit otherwise) would support one. Cameron, Clegg and Brown are clearly nowhere near level, (and it's ludicrous to see Milliand, Balls or Straw in such a light either) and we still couldn't still give either of them our support.

khib70

12-05-2010, 03:00 PM

Ahem, I voted Lib Dem, I still consider myself as having lost!!
Don't know about that, mate. The LD's got 7 percent less of the vote than Labour. That gap translated into 200 seats. I think the LD argument for PR was pretty well strengthened there! I can understand you feel cheated because you weren't voting to install David Cameron, but the best the LD's were ever going to get was a chance to hold the balance in a hung parliament. In that event they were always going to deal with the largest of the two older parties.

bighairyfaeleith

12-05-2010, 03:09 PM

Don't know about that, mate. The LD's got 7 percent less of the vote than Labour. That gap translated into 200 seats. I think the LD argument for PR was pretty well strengthened there! I can understand you feel cheated because you weren't voting to install David Cameron, but the best the LD's were ever going to get was a chance to hold the balance in a hung parliament. In that event they were always going to deal with the largest of the two older parties.

Yes but on the basis of the policies of the lib dems, like trident etc it seemed they where a million miles from the tories so I was not overly concerned. TBH I also thought the tories would probably win outright and labour would not do as well as they did.

But either way with what I have seen as the policies of the new government I'm not happy.

NI seems to be a con
Tax credits will be all but gone
Trident will get the go ahead at a severe cost
Public services will be slashed quickly and hard
The banks will get some form of profist tax (going to hit investment in the country hard)

I also suspect we will sell our shares in the banks too early now before we realise there true potential.

Some of this is of course just my opinion.

Hibbie0762

12-05-2010, 03:09 PM

Don't know about that, mate. The LD's got 7 percent less of the vote than Labour. That gap translated into 200 seats. I think the LD argument for PR was pretty well strengthened there! I can understand you feel cheated because you weren't voting to install David Cameron, but the best the LD's were ever going to get was a chance to hold the balance in a hung parliament. In that event they were always going to deal with the largest of the two older parties.Eh, older Parties? The Liberal Party was actually established before the Labour Party.

This stuff that the Lib Dems are somehow a new, fresh force in UK politics is one of the many myths about the Beige lot. They are just as steeped in the mire of the Westminster club as everyone else. Just as Clegg is every inch the career politician. Nothing wrong with being a career politician of course any more than there is being a career plumber, but pretending otherwise to the Electorate is a bit deceitful and dishonest, no?

bighairyfaeleith

12-05-2010, 03:19 PM

Eh, older Parties? The Liberal Party was actually established before the Labour Party.

This stuff that the Lib Dems are somehow a new, fresh force in UK politics is one of the many myths about the Beige lot. They are just as steeped in the mire of the Westminster club as everyone else. Just as Clegg is every inch the career politician. Nothing wrong with being a career politician of course any more than there is being a career plumber, but pretending otherwise to the Electorate is a bit deceitful and dishonest, no?

Before the election I might have disagreed

Beefster

12-05-2010, 03:28 PM

Yes but on the basis of the policies of the lib dems, like trident etc it seemed they where a million miles from the tories so I was not overly concerned. TBH I also thought the tories would probably win outright and labour would not do as well as they did.

But either way with what I have seen as the policies of the new government I'm not happy.

NI seems to be a con
Tax credits will be all but gone
Trident will get the go ahead at a severe cost
Public services will be slashed quickly and hard
The banks will get some form of profist tax (going to hit investment in the country hard)

I also suspect we will sell our shares in the banks too early now before we realise there true potential.

Some of this is of course just my opinion.

Can you actually justify the statement about tax credits?

marinello59

12-05-2010, 03:29 PM

I doubt a Con-Lib government will be much different to what Labour would have done in power. Cameron's Tories, the Thatcherite element held in check, and lots of nebulous waffling about a 'big society' to me represents very much a continuation of Blairism.

:agree:
I am not sure if that makes me feel a sense of relief or depression though.

bighairyfaeleith

12-05-2010, 03:42 PM

Can you actually justify the statement about tax credits?

Speaking from my memory, but the tories want to lower the threshold to receive them to either 30 or 40k per couple. The lib dems even lower, I think it was around 24k per couple. Even if they meet in the middle thats most couples out of the running.

As I say talking from memory so if someone knows better then please correct me.

Edit: Just checked now and the conservatives stated they would restrict it so families earning over £49k would'nt get child tax credits. Labour however argued that to achieve the proposed savings they claimed the level would need to be £31k for the tories to make there numbers work.

The lib dems have said they would restrict child tax credits but I can't find confirmation of what that means, but I am pretty sure there limit was even less than the torys.

bighairyfaeleith

12-05-2010, 05:33 PM

hibsbollah

12-05-2010, 06:32 PM

Just read this

A new report out yesterday, published by the Sutton Trust, shows that 35 per cent of MPs elected last week were privately educated; the figure for the 2005 intake was 32 per cent, and for the general public it is just 7 per cent.
It also reveals that many more Liberal Democrat than Labour MPs went to private school – 40 per cent compared to just 15 per cent; more than half of Tory MPs went to private school. The percentages going to Oxford or Cambridge are: Tories (38%), Lib Dem (28%), Labour (20%), though the overall proportion is down slightly.

Thought it was quite interesting given some of the arguments put about last night on this and other threads

It is interesting, and shows the stereotype of Tories going to private schools and Labour people being from a comprehensive background is in fact, mostly true. I also read that of the previous 53 prime ministers, 19 went to Eton. Quite incredible how that one institution has been like an assembly line for the establishment...

One Day Soon

12-05-2010, 11:13 PM

How entertaining it is to see and hear the vein-bulging rage, and hysterical doomsaying of the Labour faithful on here.

The old "no mandate in Scotland for the Tories" garbage makes a return as well. Hello!!! You lost the election. A UK election. That's the same UK that the Labour party has defended by every devious and underhand means at his disposal against the Nationalist "separatists" The same UK that a Labour government protected by indulging in Stalin/Goebbels like suppression of the true economic facts about North Sea oil.

And the same Labour party whose leaders preferred a Tory government (Thatcher's Tory government FFS) to a Scottish Parliament.

The same Labour party who formed several UK governments with a minority of votes (no mandate?) in England, thanks to their clutch of Scottish rotten boroughs.

The same Labour party that Scots vote for with knee-jerk predictability in every election. "Whit's the name o thon monkey in the red shirt again?". The tribal vote troops out despite years of Labour taking them for granted and lying and dissembling out of their terror that any kind of Scottish autonomy might threaten their undemocratic UK majority. And despite generations of incompetent, nepotistic, corrupt, freeloading Labour councils continually reelected by the faithful trooping into the polls on 25% turnouts.

It's never nice when your team loses, but some of the reaction on here is just miles OTT. I despair for sensible debate on here when someone can in all seriousness call David Cameron a "bigoted racist". I despair for it when half the arguments advanced are based on what schools people went to. Going to a comprehensive is a guarantee of political virtue then, is it? Shallow inverted snobbery.

Cameron bears about as much resemblance to Thatcher as Brown does to Keir Hardie. There's a good chance that he might bring about a society where the state butts out of people's lives, and those who want to make things better for themselves aren't stifled by bureaucracy and regulation.
He might not, but it's just as likely as the idea that he will immediately order the slaughter of the firstborn, and burn people at the stake for being working class.

Time will tell. If he does succeed , maybe the crooked Labour hegemony in Scotland will start to crumble. I hope so.

That's right, release all the pain. Next week we can try deep breathing.

Did a Labour Councillor run over your dog or something?

khib70

13-05-2010, 08:42 AM

That's right, release all the pain. Next week we can try deep breathing.

Did a Labour Councillor run over your dog or something?
Nah - a Labour Councillor would require a ratepayer-funded factfinding trip with his wife and kids to Bali to study Indonesian dog-running-over procedures before coming home and giving the dog-mashing contract to his wife's brother.

Beefster

13-05-2010, 08:56 AM

Nah - a Labour Councillor would require a ratepayer-funded factfinding trip with his wife and kids to Bali to study Indonesian dog-running-over procedures before coming home and giving the dog-mashing contract to his wife's brother.

Talking of Labour Councillors, is the Willie Dunn is this story the ex-Hibs.Net's Willie Dunn?

http://www.atssjh.org.uk/Html/12th%20April%202010%20-%20Dunn,%20Morrice%20complaint.htm

bighairyfaeleith

13-05-2010, 09:30 AM

Nah - a Labour Councillor would require a ratepayer-funded factfinding trip with his wife and kids to Bali to study Indonesian dog-running-over procedures before coming home and giving the dog-mashing contract to his wife's brother.

:greengrin yeah cos a tory mp would never take a freebie

They are just two sides of the same arse at the end of the day.

Best comment I heard in the election run up was

YouTube - TheBusinessDesk.com: Osborne and Mandelson at the Leaders' TV Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIxsVus15ac)

Not a fan of mandelson, but he is a very astute politician, it's just a shame that to succeed in politics you have to be a slimy caniving ******!!

--------

13-05-2010, 10:14 AM

Niccolo Machiavelli was much misunderstood. :greengrin

And most of those who misunderstood him came to a BAD end. :devil:

hibsbollah

13-05-2010, 10:39 AM

And most of those who misunderstood him came to a BAD end. :devil:

I was surprised at you being a Macchiavelli devotee, Doddie. You seem such a calm, lo-Mach sort of Hibby. :devil:

One Day Soon

13-05-2010, 10:31 PM

Nah - a Labour Councillor would require a ratepayer-funded factfinding trip with his wife and kids to Bali to study Indonesian dog-running-over procedures before coming home and giving the dog-mashing contract to his wife's brother.

I recognise your writing style. Were you employed by the Sun in the 1980s to write "Labour council funds mandatory lesbian gypsy masturbation classes for dole monkeys" type stories?

khib70

14-05-2010, 10:32 AM

I recognise your writing style. Were you employed by the Sun in the 1980s to write "Labour council funds mandatory lesbian gypsy masturbation classes for dole monkeys" type stories?
:yawn:Yeah, these things never really happen.............

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7044042.ece

One Day Soon

14-05-2010, 01:08 PM

:yawn:Yeah, these things never really happen.............

[/URL]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7044042.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7044042.ece)

How about this:

Tory

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5026476.Councillor__can_t_afford_Jag__without_high er_expenses/ (http://http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5026476.Councillor__can_t_afford_Jag__without_high er_expenses/)

Lib Dem

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5933688/paul-rowen-and-the-anatomy-of-a-lib-dem-expenses-scam.thtml (http://http//www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5933688/paul-rowen-and-the-anatomy-of-a-lib-dem-expenses-scam.thtml)

SNP

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7182462/Grubby-Alex-Salmond-admits-selling-more-lunches.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7182462/Grubby-Alex-Salmond-admits-selling-more-lunches.html)

Any comment at all?

khib70

14-05-2010, 01:30 PM

How about this:

Tory

[/URL]http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5026476.Councillor__can_t_afford_Jag__without_high er_expenses/ (http://http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5026476.Councillor__can_t_afford_Jag__without_high er_expenses/)

Lib Dem

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5933688/paul-rowen-and-the-anatomy-of-a-lib-dem-expenses-scam.thtml (http://http//www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5933688/paul-rowen-and-the-anatomy-of-a-lib-dem-expenses-scam.thtml)

SNP

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7182462/Grubby-Alex-Salmond-admits-selling-more-lunches.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7182462/Grubby-Alex-Salmond-admits-selling-more-lunches.html)

Any comment at all?
Yeah. If two wrongs don't make a right, four don't either. However, are any of the above facing criminal charges like a certain Mr Devine? Wait till the whole can of worms that is "council arms-length companies" opens up. Wait till the full story about a certain Mr Purcell comes out.

bighairyfaeleith

14-05-2010, 01:43 PM

Yeah. If two wrongs don't make a right, four don't either. However, are any of the above facing criminal charges like a certain Mr Devine? Wait till the whole can of worms that is "council arms-length companies" opens up. Wait till the full story about a certain Mr Purcell comes out.

What is this, our sleazy bstards are better than you're sleazy bstards:faf:

We all remember the tory mps towards the end of there last reign of power, scandal everyewhere. I'm not at all surprised that some similar stories have came out about labour.

It's not that mp's don't do it, or just suddenly start doing it when they get power. It's simply that the press wait until they are bored or feel like changing the government then the stories start to come out. You wait, it will happen to the tories again.