Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Filo on May 07, 2010, 09:47:32 am
-
Hope that red tie that Nick Clegg wore all night was signalling his intentions
-
I don't think anyone saw a result as well hung as this coming. Barring a Liberal-Tory deal which seems inconceivable, there's no way for anyone to put a coalition together to produce a majority.
I reckon we'll be doing this all over again within 12 months.
-
This is a quote from me made on Tuesday that I made on another forum I use
I`m going for a hung parliament with the Lib Dems forcing Brown out and David Millband as PM and Nick Clegg as deputy PM, with a second General election in October
http://www.stainforthonline.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5386&sid=a6f43641faae0da354f2a1599c5471ec
-
My misses said hung last night but she wasnt reffering to the election!!! I just heard that it is likely that labour and libs will put something together for a coalition government. Not sure that go down well, although only in this country could it happen! The parties who are out of favour running the country against the majority, cos they werent a big enough majority! God my head hurts. So many scenarios now available, and after watching the interviews through the night, the only politicion i have actually seen give a straight answer to a question all year instead of rambling on and on is the BNP leader!!!!! They all hide away from questions, and duck and dive, and give cheesy grins.
-
BBC reports that Nick Clegg his standing by his statement that the party with the most seats should seek to form a government so perhaps the Torys and LDs will at least have a chit chat? Although its not beyond the possibility that Labout + LD + one more could scrape enough seats between them.
-
Also appears that when u take scotland out of the equation, labour have been battered. Dont they want there own government up there??? The only areas where the labour strong hold is still tight are the old mining areas and scotland! I know some people who have voted tory for the 1st time, but wont tell there parents!!! Whats that all about? Surely what a party did 25 years ago shouldnt still effect the future now. I think its mad that in this day and age people feel they cant vote who they want, because its a 'labour area' and there 'letting people down'. What happened to the lib dems?? When that exit poll came up, i thought 'well thats miles out'. But it appeared to be pretty accurate overall. Should be some interesting times ahead.
-
awsworth_rover wrote:
The parties who are out of favour running the country against the majority, cos they werent a big enough majority!
Its not that at all. Its because the tories dont speak for the majority of the population, as evidenced by the (roughly) 39% of votes they pulled in. Like it or loathe it, the first past the post system gives the winner a clear mandate. when we dont have a winner, like today, then it forces parties to work together (at least in the short term) for the common good. I dont necessarily see that as a bad thing.
-
RobTheRover wrote:
awsworth_rover wrote:
The parties who are out of favour running the country against the majority, cos they werent a big enough majority!
Its not that at all. Its because the tories dont speak for the majority of the population, as evidenced by the (roughly) 39% of votes they pulled in. Like it or loathe it, the first past the post system gives the winner a clear mandate. when we dont have a winner, like today, then it forces parties to work together (at least in the short term) for the common good. I dont necessarily see that as a bad thing.
I know what your saying, but surely u must agree, brown has had a terrible result and the nation except the hardcore labour areas have enough. Lib dems have been nowhere near where they thought they would be. So labour voted out, lib dem bugger all. How can Brown even contemplate trying to stay in power with a coalition? Clegg has said already whoever gets the majority, should be in power. If he sticks to his word then, he should be jumping in bed with cameron?? Makes a mockery of the whole system if Brown stays in, and yes I understand the rules, but that doesnt mean i agree with them.
-
Filo wrote:
http://www.stainforthonline.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5386&sid=a6f43641faae0da354f2a1599c5471ec
You've got to be shitting me. :huh:
-
On the BBC Site....
\"Nick Clegg, leader of the third biggest party the Lib Dems, said the Tories had the first right to seek to govern. \"
See link...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667938.stm
...so do we read from that that the Lib Dems will back a Tory Government and strike a deal with them?
In my eyes Labour have no right to govern, as was said repeatedly last night on both BBC and ITV, they have played second fiddle to the Tories in this election, as the result + swing even in seats where they kept power, has shown. The lies and deceit, particularly during Browns tenure, have bit them in the arse.
-
Thinwhiteduke wrote:
On the BBC Site....
\"Nick Clegg, leader of the third biggest party the Lib Dems, said the Tories had the first right to seek to govern. \"
See link...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667938.stm
...so do we read from that that the Lib Dems will back a Tory Government and strike a deal with them?
Lip service! He`s got to be seen to say the right things, all through his campaign he said that the party that has the greatest number of seats should have the chance to form a government, unless the Tories cave in to electoral reform I can`t see the Lib Dems teaming up with them and giving them that chance. The Lib Dems have more in common with the policies of the Labour party
-
Thinwhiteduke wrote:
In my eyes Labour have no right to govern, as was said repeatedly last night on both BBC and ITV, they have played second fiddle to the Tories in this election, as the result + swing even in seats where they kept power, has shown. The lies and deceit, particularly during Browns tenure, have bit them in the arse.
But on the other hand the Tories have not been given the required majority to form a stable government, which suggest that the electorate are probably not sure about the Tories either, I predict another election in October
-
I think some of you are missing the subtlties here.
Clegg is playing a reasonably canny game. By saying the Tories have the first shot at forming a Government, he is NOT saying that he will support such a Government. He's aiming a gun at the Tories' heads and saying, \"Give on our key issues, or we will vote you down and collaborate with Labour.\" If the Tories didn't give, Clegg could hold his hands up and say, \"I tried to be fair and honest but they wouldn't compromise. In the national interest, we will form a Govt with Labour to see us through this crisis.\"
Many, many twists and turns to come here. Personally, I struggle to see how the Tories can possibly accept Liberal demands and have any credibility at all - it would require too much of a change in their policies. There will be some frantic discussions and negotiations going on behind the scenes right now, but any way you cut it up, it's hard to see a Govt emerging from either side that could have a long term existence.
EDIT: Forgot to say two other things:
1) Brown is finished either way. If the Tories and Liberals collaborate, he's gone. If the Liberals collaborate with labour, they'd demand his head as part of the price.
2) Cameron is in deep shit with his Party. His entire policy has been, \"Trust me, leave it to me and shut up. I will win because labour is so unpopular.\" The entire Tory strategy was based around Cameron as a personality. How many times did you see Osbourne, Grieve, Letwin, Willets, Grayling during the campaign? I thought they'd all died. Hague, Gove and Clark popped up once or twice, but apart from that it was ENTIRELY based around Cameron.
He's failed in this approach, and the Party is already sharpening the knives. Already the grizzled old Tory party grandees are coming out, complaining that they held their noses through all the Cameron attempts to give a more modern, caring face to Toryism, based on his wholesome face, and the result is that after the worst recession in 70 years, he's failed to deliver them back to power. He's going to hear some heated and aggressive opinions from his own side in private, and he will not be able to base any future campaign around \"Trust me. I'm Dave, your mate.\"
-
Apparently it's still possible for the Tories to form a minority government if they can cobble together 309 seats with the help of the Unionists and others.
If he can't, then he has to go to Clegg and cut a deal. Clegg will demand PR (unless he becomes some kind of political martyr). Cameron then has the choice of accepting PR or Clegg going to Labour and getting PR and forming a Lib/Lab coalition.
It could even get down to one or two seats making the difference between Cameron or a new Labour Prime Minister (can't see Brown holding on).
And all this without the bitter losers demanding recounts and investigations into voter lockouts.
It's all very interesting that's for sure...
-
Must say I agree with these sentiments from the BBC election site:
\"Although he has lost this election, and nigh-on a hundred seats, the pundits tell us that constitutionally, Gordon Brown gets first go at trying to patch together a coalition.
His position is desperate, and desperate men are prepared to make any concession, agree to any pact, that will keep them in power. Watch him flatter Nick Clegg, agree to a referendum on Proportional Representation and ditch his Cabinet colleagues.
Then, hear him sonorously and high-mindedly declare himself in favour of \"principled government\".\"
Brown claims to be a symbol of dignity and integrity, he could confirm such and step aside - he simply is not wanted.
-
Torys and Lib Dems hand in hand?!? Who'd have thought it? Interesting......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667938.stm
-
Thinwhiteduke wrote:
Torys and Lib Dems hand in hand?!? Who'd have thought it? Interesting......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667938.stm
How is it hand in hand, as far as I can see Cameron has not offered or promised anything to the Lib Dems. If Clegg throws his lot in with the Tories he may well be finished as Lib Dem leader
-
There is around 4 likely possible outcomes:
Cameron attempts to form a minority government which will not prove stable and benfical to the Conservatives
A Lib/Labour which would still only be a minority
A Lib/Con government which would mean a conservative majority but how long will it last?
No one colliates, and end of next week her majesty will call foreward \"the best candidate\" for the job (leader of the party with the most seats)
One thing is for certain, Brown is certainly on his way out of Downing street, one rumour from the liberal democrats is a demand to see Clegg as PM and Brown restored as his chancellor, another is Miliband as PM, A Cameron/Clegg governemnt will probably work best because they both want the same thing: Labours power!
-
Even if Cameron promised every single seat in the cabinet to the Liberals, Clegg would still go for Brown's offer of PR, as they could be removed from power easily from a coalition government.
Under PR the game is changed permanently and it would guarantee them at least three times the number of seats in future elections.
The only thing to stop Clegg jumping into bed with Brown (assuming Cameron doesn't offer PR), is that he comes under pressure that he is not acting for the good of the country. Being a politician, I assume he'll find a way to spin it in his favour although the Murdoch machine will be out in full force. If he accepted to back Cameron without holding out for voting change his party would never forgive him.
-
RyansArmy wrote:
, A Cameron/Clegg governemnt will probably work best because they both want the same thing: Labours power!
A recipe for disaster in my opinion and how long do you think it would be before the Tories Double crossed them, once Cameron gets in he`ll ditch the Lib Dems at the first opportunity, I can only see another election later on in the year as the only way forward
-
Filo wrote:
RyansArmy wrote:
, A Cameron/Clegg governemnt will probably work best because they both want the same thing: Labours power!
A recipe for disaster in my opinion and how long do you think it would be before the Tories Double crossed them, once Cameron gets in he`ll ditch the Lib Dems at the first opportunity, I can only see another election later on in the year as the only way forward
Oh yes, i agree fully with that, Id give it 4-6 months before the general election, all i was digressing towards was that a hung parliment with Gordon Brown staying on is clearly not a fair result given they are not the party with the most seats
-
RyansArmy wrote:
Filo wrote:
RyansArmy wrote:
, A Cameron/Clegg governemnt will probably work best because they both want the same thing: Labours power!
A recipe for disaster in my opinion and how long do you think it would be before the Tories Double crossed them, once Cameron gets in he`ll ditch the Lib Dems at the first opportunity, I can only see another election later on in the year as the only way forward
Oh yes, i agree fully with that, Id give it 4-6 months before the general election, all i was digressing towards was that a hung parliment with Gordon Brown staying on is clearly not a fair result given they are not the party with the most seats
And if another election so soon throws up a hung parliament again?
-
Struggling to see how the Liberals could in good faith support the Tories' fiscal policy. The Tories want to reduce Govt spending immediately despite the private sector still being very weak. The Liberals have a very similar policy to Labour which is a neo-Keynsian acceptance that public spending has to continue to take up the slack until the private sector strengthens. That's a fundamental difference in policy. If the Liberals now change their policy then they have effectively deceived everyone who voted for them.
A clear majority of people have voted for parties (Labour & Liberal) who would delay fiscal contraction for a year. A minority voted for the Tories who would tighten spending immediately. There is a clear case for a Labour-Liberal alliance on this issue, which is by far and away the single most important question facing us over the next year.
-
Thinwhiteduke wrote:
Brown claims to be a symbol of dignity and integrity, he could confirm such and step aside - he simply is not wanted.
And who is prime-minister in the mean time? Cameron can't just step in, especially now he has offered to go to bed with clegg.
Brown is simply staying on as PM until the next government is formed, whether it be Tory minority, Tory/Lib Dem coalition/partnership, or Labour/Lib Dem/et all coalition.
-
Got some figures from BBC website; shows just how much spin has been put on the whole \"the people want Labour out\" thing.
Total Votes:
Conservatives - 10,706,647 (36.1%) - 306 seats
Labour - 8,604,358 (29.0%) - 258 seats
Liberal Democrat - 6,827,938 (23.0%) 57 seats
Also shows why the Lib Dems are so in favour of Electoral reform - they only got 6% less votes than Labour, yet only have 201 seats less than them! :blink:
-
bobjimwilly wrote:
Got some figures from BBC website; shows just how much spin has been put on the whole \"the people want Labour out\" thing.
Total Votes:
Conservatives - 10,706,647 (36.1%) - 306 seats
Labour - 8,604,358 (29.0%) - 258 seats
Liberal Democrat - 6,827,938 (23.0%) 57 seats
Also shows why the Lib Dems are so in favour of Electoral reform - they only got 6% less votes than Labour, yet only have 201 seats less than them! :blink:
Those figures also show that a labour lib dem partnership have 52 percent of the vote which by alot of peoples reading is themajority of the electorate
-
It's clear that the people have spoken and they don't want Brown or Cameron as they knew that if they voted Liberal, that a hung Parliament would result. But perhaps as this story suggests, it would be what they really want.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237351/page/1
The question I have is, according to the BBC's \"Hung Parliament - What Happens Now' story, why wasn't Brown given the first chance to talk to the Liberals as is stated d/t the fact he is the sitting PM? It sounds like Cameron is taking the first crack at it.
And the Liberals may finally get the respect they may deserve. Perhaps a PR may be the right idea at the right time...
-
The country is full of fools. Labour have gone through the toughest times ever. If cons get in, we are all fooked. It's going to be a bad ride :angry:
-
Sandy Lane wrote:
why wasn't Brown given the first chance to talk to the Liberals as is stated d/t the fact he is the sitting PM? It sounds like Cameron is taking the first crack at it.
I think that Brown took a gamble when he made his statement from Downing street, he knew that the Lib Dems had constantly stated throughout the campaign that they thought that the party with the most seats should have the first opportunity to form a government, Brown was also pretty sure that the Conservatives would not bow to electoral reform, a probable major condition of the Lib Dems for forming any kind of alliance. So Brown says ok speak to the Conservatives first, taking the moral high ground and hoping that the Lib Dems don`t throw their principles away, but at the same time Brown is also saying Labour will go for electoral reform so when your talks with the conservatives fail, Labour is still here ready to talk to you
I hope that makes sense, if it does n`t, I know what i`m on about if no one else does :)
-
The tories won't go for PR, or electoral reform. They will offer the chance of an inquiry or commission of some kind that will result in nothing, much like what Blair did in the past.
Just hope the Lib Dems won't settle for that and come back over from the Dark Side :blink:
-
I can see only two outcomes now:
1. A Tory minority government which relies on Lib Dem support to pass a Queen's Speech and a Budget. Although they can probably agree a legislative programme, the Budget will be a real sticking point unless the Lib Dems accept the idea of some public spending cuts this year. Even if they get past that, I can't see the arrangement being particularly stable. Cameron will ultimately not give the Libs PR - even if he wanted to (which I doubt) his party will not let him.
2. A Lib-Lab coalition. Worth noting that such an arrangement would not command a majority in the commons although they could probably do enough to keep the Scots, Welsh and NI parties onside. Brown would have to go, so I could see a lot of haggling over who would be PM. There's no stand-out candidate on the Labour side and their MPs would not accept Clegg as PM. Also the \"unelected PM\" argument would come up again- with some force after a campaign where all parties focused mainly on the leader.
Neither arrangement would be particuarly stable. I suspect that option 1 will happen but won't hold beyond the summer and we'll be voting again in October/ November.
What happens to the economy in the meantime doesn't bear thinking about!
-
The bookies are rarely wrong:
Tory/Lib Dem 5/6
Tory Minority 5/6
Labour/Lib Dem 5/1
-
Filo wrote:
Sandy Lane wrote:
why wasn't Brown given the first chance to talk to the Liberals as is stated d/t the fact he is the sitting PM? It sounds like Cameron is taking the first crack at it.
I think that Brown took a gamble when he made his statement from Downing street, he knew that the Lib Dems had constantly stated throughout the campaign that they thought that the party with the most seats should have the first opportunity to form a government, Brown was also pretty sure that the Conservatives would not bow to electoral reform, a probable major condition of the Lib Dems for forming any kind of alliance. So Brown says ok speak to the Conservatives first, taking the moral high ground and hoping that the Lib Dems don`t throw their principles away, but at the same time Brown is also saying Labour will go for electoral reform so when your talks with the conservatives fail, Labour is still here ready to talk to you
I hope that makes sense, if it does n`t, I know what i`m on about if no one else does :)
Thanks for that, and I do understand. It makes sense, and best of luck to Brown and Labour.
If the worst happens and the Tories get in, remember the words of our ignorant, dangerous idiot:
...fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.''
—President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002. ;)
Barring that, there's always drugs and alcohol... :)
Seriously. if there does need to be another election, what will change between now and then to produce a clear winner? Sadly, I think If the Tories form the coalition government, they'll just need to sit tight for a few months and do nothing to upset the apple cart, and they'll be voted in as their detrimental policies will not yet have become clear.
-
If Clegg becomes Cameron`s rent boy it could spell disaster for the Lib Dems if there was an early election, the Lib Dem voters did n`t vote for a tory government, most are likely to defect to Labour in an early election
-
Welcome to real politics Mr Clegg.
You have two choices.
1) Support the Tory party in what will undoubtedly be extremely unpopular measures over the next couple of years. Accept policies that are diametrically opposed to the ones that you had in your manifesto, and be open to the accusation that you are untrustworthy and without principles. Don't get Proportional Representation. Deeply alienate your core support, most of whom are slightly Left of Centre. Ensure that no-one who has left-leaning tendencies ever votes for you again.
2) Support a deeply unpopular Labour minority Government. Get PR but be open to the accusation that you put your Party's best interests before those of the country. Have a shotgun put to your head by the Plaid Cymru/SNP MP's whose votes you'd need to pass legislation. Ensure that no-one who has right-leaning tendencies ever votes for you again.
Either way, you are in for a kicking from your supporters and/or the electorate.
I suspect that young Nick is in the process of realising that he's in a bit of a pickle. He's probably beginning to understand that real politics is a fcuk sight harder than looking straight at a camera on a TV show, remembering questioners' first names and making glib one-liners. It's about tough, hard, unpalatable decisions that will be used to smash you down in the future.
Come the next election, he might understand why Brown looks so knackered.
PS: There's one bright spot in all of this. Since Cameron and Clegg are flouting the conventions of our constitutional arrangements by ignoring the current PM in their discussions, they are technically guilty of treason. The Queesn must be livid. I'm waiting for them both to be dragged off to the Tower by the Beefeaters and beheaded.
PPS: The editor of The Sun should follow them to the gallows. This stupid shite they are putting on their front page about how Brown shouldn;t be allowed to \"squat\" in No.10. Utter, infantile crap. Brown has NO OPTION but to stay as PM until things are sorted out. Where would we be if he did what The Sun suggests and says, \"Ah f**k it. I've had enough. I'll leave the keys under the bin for you lot when you are ready.\"? It doesn't work like that. He has a DUTY to stay on as PM until there is a viable Government to replace him. Yet another example of Murdoch's rags pursuing their own interests by keeping the general population in ignorance. They COULD have used this situation as a way of helping to educate people about how our political processes work. Some f**king chance of that eh?
-
I agree that Lib Dem/Tory coalition is a bad idea, most LD supporters are left wing can't see it going down well with Clegg's party.
As an aside I personally believe Ed Miliband should go for Labour leadership as I believe this would restore at least some of Labours popularity. Brown should and will go after that result and rightly so. I'm Labour at heart but even I thought twice about voting for them on this occasion, in the end I did but through gritted teeth.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Welcome to real politics Mr Clegg.
You have two choices.
1) Support the Tory party in what will undoubtedly be extremely unpopular measures over the next couple of years. Accept policies that are diametrically opposed to the ones that you had in your manifesto, and be open to the accusation that you are untrustworthy and without principles. Don't get Proportional Representation. Deeply alienate your core support, most of whom are slightly Left of Centre. Ensure that no-one who has left-leaning tendencies ever votes for you again.
2) Support a deeply unpopular Labour minority Government. Get PR but be open to the accusation that you put your Party's best interests before those of the country. Have a shotgun put to your head by the Plaid Cymru/SNP MP's whose votes you'd need to pass legislation. Ensure that no-one who has right-leaning tendencies ever votes for you again.
Either way, you are in for a kicking from your supporters and/or the electorate.
I suspect that young Nick is in the process of realising that he's in a bit of a pickle. He's probably beginning to understand that real politics is a fcuk sight harder than looking straight at a camera on a TV show, remembering questioners' first names and making glib one-liners. It's about tough, hard, unpalatable decisions that will be used to smash you down in the future.
Come the next election, he might understand why Brown looks so knackered.
PS: There's one bright spot in all of this. Since Cameron and Clegg are flouting the conventions of our constitutional arrangements by ignoring the current PM in their discussions, they are technically guilty of treason. The Queesn must be livid. I'm waiting for them both to be dragged off to the Tower by the Beefeaters and beheaded.
PPS: The editor of The Sun should follow them to the gallows. This stupid shite they are putting on their front page about how Brown shouldn;t be allowed to \"squat\" in No.10. Utter, infantile crap. Brown has NO OPTION but to stay as PM until things are sorted out. Where would we be if he did what The Sun suggests and says, \"Ah fcuk it. I've had enough. I'll leave the keys under the bin for you lot when you are ready.\"? It doesn't work like that. He has a DUTY to stay on as PM until there is a viable Government to replace him. Yet another example of Murdoch's rags pursuing their own interests by keeping the general population in ignorance. They COULD have used this situation as a way of helping to educate people about how our political processes work. Some fcuking chance of that eh?
I agree with your analysis except in one respect: what Cameron and Clegg are doing is NOT unconstitutional at all. They are trying to see if they can produce either (a) a coalition which would have a majority in the Commons or (b) terms under which a minority Tory government could work at least for a time. Brown and Clegg together could not achieve either because the combined total of Labour & Lib Dems would not have a majority.
If Cameron and Clegg can't agree the next step would be talks between Brown and Clegg, but such a Government would be highly unstable and could fall as soon as it tries to present a Queen's Speech.
A lot of commentators (and some politicians) are treating this as though this is some kind of academic exercise. it is NOT. My guess is that unless by the end of the day there is some sort of statement from the Tories and Lib Dems that they have the basis of an agreement, that the pound will drop through the floor when the markets open and shares will follow them. And in case you don't think that affects you, the response from the Bank of England will have to be a sharp rise in interest rates.
-
I was just being a bit daft with the unconstitutional comments. But there is a very important issue here, and it highlights Clegg's lack of substance as a serious politician.
According to convention (we don't actually have a constitution of course, just a set of commonly agreed ways of doing things according to precedent) the sitting PM has the first chance to try to create a workable majority in the House. Brown COULD do that with support from the Liberals, Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Not ideal by a long stretch, but it's more ideologically coherent than an alliance between Tories and Liberals.
Clegg has blown this option out if the water and flouted convention by a thoughtless, off the cuff remark during the election campaign. Had he NOT made that remark, he could have kept his options open now. As it is, he has painted himself into a corner and made it pretty much inevitable that he will have an arrangement with the Tories.
As I say, he's going through a painful transition from being an amateur politician whose comments don't mean much, to being someone who is not able to make a single slip without it coming back to bite him (and the country) in the arse.
Anybody really think he's up to it?
-
Repost
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
I was just being a bit daft with the unconstitutional comments. But there is a very important issue here, and it highlights Clegg's lack of substance as a serious politician.
According to convention (we don't actually have a constitution of course, just a set of commonly agreed ways of doing things according to precedent) the sitting PM has the first chance to try to create a workable majority in the House. Brown COULD do that with support from the Liberals, Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Not ideal by a long stretch, but it's more ideologically coherent than an alliance between Tories and Liberals.
Clegg has blown this option out if the water and flouted convention by a thoughtless, off the cuff remark during the election campaign. Had he NOT made that remark, he could have kept his options open now. As it is, he has painted himself into a corner and made it pretty much inevitable that he will have an arrangement with the Tories.
As I say, he's going through a painful transition from being an amateur politician whose comments don't mean much, to being someone who is not able to make a single slip without it coming back to bite him (and the country) in the arse.
Anybody really think he's up to it?
As you say under the \"constitution\" (for want of a better word) Clegg should be talking to Labour and Gordon Brown as the sitting PM.Then if no agreement is reached he is free to talk to the Torys.
\"Constitutionally\" Gordon Brown is entirely correct and is dutybound to remain as PM untill some agreement is reached with someone.
All this crap from Clegg about I'm going to talk to the Torys cos they have the most number of MP's is not the correct way of doing things.
The only thing anyone can say with any certainty is we'll all be voting again fairly soon!
-
Which raises the interesting prospect of bankrupting one or more of the political parties. State funding for parties next chaps?!
One of my pet hobby horses actually that is. I'm all in favour. It would, 'at a stroke' remove the corruption of vested interests funding parties of their choice and subsequently wielding unhealthy influence in government. 'Donations' would, for me, then be a criminal offence. And while we're on the subject, I'd pay every MP a quarter of a million a year or so and abolish the equally contemptible practice that lots of them indulge in of accepting shed loads of directorships and advisor posts in return for yet more shed loads of money - and selling of influence. That's just about the most corrupt practice of all.
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
Which raises the interesting prospect of bankrupting one or more of the political parties. State funding for parties next chaps?!
One of my pet hobby horses actually that is. I'm all in favour. It would, 'at a stroke' remove the corruption of vested interests funding parties of their choice and subsequently wielding unhealthy influence in government. 'Donations' would, for me, then be a criminal offence. And while we're on the subject, I'd pay every MP a quarter of a million a year or so and abolish the equally contemptible practice that lots of them indulge in of accepting shed loads of directorships and advisor posts in return for yet more shed loads of money - and selling of influence. That's just about the most corrupt practice of all.
BobG
Totally with you on that one Bob. The people who govern our country are important and we need the best. If you pay peanuts you shouldn't be surprised if you get monkeys. Give them a representative salary and absolutely no expenses and they have no excuses.
Only just joined this interesting thread and I have just shown the exchanges between BST and TRB to my horribly precocious daughter (all A* last year at GCSE and now taking History and Politics among other subjects at A level - intellectually she has completely left her Mathematical Dad behind for dead)
She was interested and impressed (but unable to admit to it) - not sure she will be able to give VSC as a primary source in her upcoming exams...........
P.S. Edit: Of course Holland is used to Coalitions and Dutch politicians are used to the pragmatism and bargaining and compromises that go with it and which are needed to make it work. It works a significant amount of the time....but long term stable it is not.