Donny North MP for PM!

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Red Baron wrote:

Just saw your PS after I posted. I think we ought to nail the myth that there could have been a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in May. The arithmetic just didn't stack up, added to which there was the whole issue of the Labour leadership: keeping Brown in office even as a caretaker PM would simply not have been credible.

Tim Farron, a senior Lib Dem who is no Tory-lover explained the dilemma rather well in an interview last week. He said they could have either entered a coalition with the Tories or let Cameron form a minority Govt. The outcome of the latter would certainly have been another election this year and a likely Tory majority Govt. It is easy to criticise the Lib Dems, but they really were between a rock and a hard place, because their \"other option\" (a coalition with Labour) just wasn't feasible.

Forgive me for saying so TRB, but that comment by Farron is nonsense. Buy then, of course he will say there is no alternative. There IS no alternative NOW because they've made their bed. So they gave to spin it that there WAS no alternative THEN.

Absolute nonsense. There were several alternatives.

1) A Labour-Liberal-SNP-PC coalition would have (just) had a majority.

2) A Tory minority Government would not have been guaranteed to be either short lived, or to automatically result in a follow up Tory majority.

3) Even going into coalition with the Tories, there was nothing written in stone to say that the Tory economic policy should be taken on in its totality. Why could the Liberals not point out that fewer than 40% of voters had backed the policy of the biggest cutbacks for 80 years? Why could they not drive a bargain that said \"If you want our support, you have to give ground on the scale of the cuts. This is a coalition after all, not a capitulation by us.\"

Instead, the Liberals have given the (minority) Tory policies a stamp of approval that the electorate categorically did NOT give. In return, they have Bern chucked a couple of irrelevant sops, including an AV vote that has already been scuppered by the Tories' insistence on coupling it with boundary changes. Clegg has been out-manoeuvred at every turn and is now reaping the rewards in his Party's poll ratings.

[hoolahoop]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

A few points.

Clegg is on the fast track to irrelevance. His one and only appeal to the voters was that he looked like a nice honest guy on the telly. Well, the electorate soon learned their mistake on that score didn't they? As soon as the election was over, he dumped the Party's key economic policies (in the face of much opposition by Cable) and signed up to support vastly more vicious and rapid cutbacks than the Liberals had proposed. He justifies this by saying that he changed his mind in the last few days before the Election (but didn't think he'd bother telling his Party or the electorate) He's a political Dead Man Walking. Who is ever going to trust a word that he says in future? And why bother voting for a Clegg-led Liberal Party if he is simply going to endorse the wilder Tory economic policies? That us the reason that Clegg has performed a political miracle - he has managed to HALVE the Liberals' poll ratings within 4 months of a successful election. Utterly unprecedented.

The obvious conclusion is that the next election will revert to type and be a straightforward Tory-Labour run-off. It's quite astonishing how quickly folk have cottoned onto this andvthe polls have, fir several months now, been showing Labour and the Tories both at around 40% with the Liberals on 12-14%. And THAT is before the extent of the Tory-proposed, Liberal-supported cuts  really begin to become apparent. Just see what the polls say after the Spending Round announcement next month, when we actually see the details.

 The Liberals will revert to being a fringe party with a couple of dozen seats at the next election. The issue then will be whether the Tory cuts have worked or whether they have destroyed the fragile recovery and put millions of families through even more hardship. Personalities and TV performance will matter not a jot. If the Tory policies work, they will walk the next election. If they don't a sensible left-of-centre alternative will be able to say, \"See! We told you how reckless a gamble it was. There always was an alternative and we've been telling you that for 5 years\". And they will win with a landslide, whether Miliband looks like a geek or not.

EDIT: Hoola, how can Clegg be a moderating influence on the Tory cuts? He's signed up for them lock, stock and barrel! He's already flipped his Party's economic policy on the hoof once in order to join the coalition (against the policy of Cable who wanted a coalition with Labour and a more measured approach to balancing cuts with growth).  If he flipped again and started opposing the proposed cuts, he'd be a laughing stock. He's chucked all the Liberals' egg into one basket, marked \"Tory economic policy\". Even if that policy works, why bother voting Liberal again? If you agree with the Tory economic approach, you might as well simply vote Tory.

A few points, I have never known an incumbent party follow through to the letter their election policies and neither have you . You look at the books , see the compromises you MUST make (that incidentally would have made all 3 unelectable!)and then proceed from there. Obviously forming a Coalition is a far harder problem to overcome especially when you are much the smaller partner.
I can understand your distaste for Clegg after all it made you party of choice lose the Election but can't understand why for one minute you would think that he had the choice of forming such a Coalition with a disgraced and out of favour party and leader. It's now common knowledge that Brown had a problem dealing with his own folk let alone that interfering little t**t from the Lib/Dems.
Clegg had no choice, his party hadn't broken into mainstream politics as once was thought likely at the end of the campaign and they would not have had the resources or the stupidity to enforce a re-run where his party would quite undoubtedly have found their votes squeezed by the other two major parties. Incidentally precisely the future you envisage for them whether they are successful or not in moving us through this recession.
Which decision would you have made in his shoes Billy that's what I would find most interesting ?

Your perception of a 'left of centre' Labour party is based on what information and incidentally how much to the left ? Enough to please the Unions perhaps and tell them that all is OK with the world and that none of their members will ever get hurt in the cuts ? Perhaps you may think that there is no necessity for 'deep' cuts at all  :dry:

Is there a need for more than 2 parties perhaps or should we all only have the opportunity to vote for the 2 main parties. Indeed in what I perceive to be your ideal world (please correct me if I'm wrong) we should perhaps only have a one party state........a party of the people for the people etc. We could even couple this up with ridiculous 5 year unrealistic plans and pretend the goals have been reached when they are never likely to be ; remind you of anywhere perhaps ?

As for Clegg and the Liberals , history may indeed prove you correct in your assertions but I doubt it. Democrats enjoy choice.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola. There's absolutely nothing personal in what I'm about to say, but you don't half talk some b*llocks on the topic of politics.

Point out one single posting from me that gives you any grounds whatsoever for claiming that I'm a Marxist, in favour of a one-party state or any of the other ridiculous ramblings that you chuck at anyone with a left of centre approach. It's purile, childish and pathetic, and you're cleverer than that.

EDIT: Now I've got that off me chest, some of your other points are pertinent.

You're right that Governments always compromise to a greater or lesser extent. But the problem that THIS Govt has us that it has set its stall out from the outset to produce the deepest cuts in living memory. It's now painted into a corner. If it goes back on that, it shows political weakness (suicide). If it delivers, the results will be deeply damaging to many millions of people. Either way, it's impossible to see the Liberals coming out with credit from their core support  This commitment stems from a deeply Thatcherite approach to economics which believes that public services are inherently bad and wasteful. It's an attitude that I despise and fundamentally disagree with.

Of course I believe that people should have choice. But it should be INFORMED choice. The despicable thing about the Liberals us not that they rutted put the Labour party (more childishness from you there) but that they have been demonstrated to stand for NOTHING. That us the reason I despise Clegg. He embodies the vacuousness of some politicians. He appealed through a boyish charm, his party campaigned on one set of economic policies (actually very similar to those put forward by Labour) then he immediately ditched the lot following the Election. That is not political tactics. It is disgraceful and blatant lying. On THE single most important issue affecting every one of us. He won votes, seats and influence on a lie and he and his party need to be held to account for that.

I'm not doubting that Clegg had difficult decisions to make after the election. That's politics. If he gas been left with a disaster whichever decision he took, then perhaps that brings into question the whole POINT if the Liberal Party. I mean, what IS the point of a party if you have no idea what a vote for them will lead to? It's a vote for no principle and no policy at all. It is simply nit sufficient to say\"vote for us and we'll tell you afterwards what we will do.\" So the issue of what I would have done in Clegg's shoes I'd a non-question. I would not gave been in Clegg's shoes because I have principled political beliefs. I'd no more think of chucking them up than I'd consider leaving the Rovers and supporting Leeds. Which is why I support Labour and not the Liberals. I want to know what the party I vote for will do BEFORE I vote for them.

[hoolahoop]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Hoola. There's absolutely nothing personal in what I'm about to say, but you don't half talk some b*llocks on the topic of politics.

Point out one single posting from me that gives you any grounds whatsoever for claiming that I'm a Marxist, in favour of a one-party state or any of the other ridiculous ramblings that you chuck at anyone with a left of centre approach. It's purile, childish and pathetic, and you're cleverer than that.

Funny that Billy I was just thinking the same about your last post where you suggested that a Lab/Lib/SNP/PC coalition had any chance of success. What could ever give you the idea that Brown , Salmond and Clegg could ever possibly ever work together with their many different agendas.
Incidentally I don't take your observations personally and you're right I'm not stupid enough to think for one minute that you didn't want to keep the last Labour party in power despite it's massive flaws whatever the cost to the country.
This is as you stated yesterday 'a big boys forum' and you must agree with just one observation .......we are politically miles apart and I don't take your condescending attitude of my so called 'ridiculous ramblings' to heart.

Addressing your final point there are many posts that you have placed on ths board that more than suggest to me that you are politically more than just a bit more than 'left of centre'. The 'one party state' comment was purely to draw you out, I of course realise that you don't want a Stalnist state here ...yet!  

[BillyStubbsTears]

Brown was NEVER going to be able to stay on as PM after the election result. That much was perfectly clear. With that as a starting point for discussion, the coalition I suggested was no more outlandish than the one we ended up with. Economically (and economics was always going to be the key issue) Labour, SNP and PC are far closer than the Liberals and Tories. (At least if you go by what the Liberals said in their manifesto, although I accept the flaw in my argument...)

Anyway, coalitions are all about compromises aren't they? I mean, why should Salmond and say Miliband have any more trouble getting on than Cable and Pickles, who both now sit in the Cabinet but are as far apart politically as me and thee.

Anyway, I'd be delighted if you could dig out some posts from me that give any indication whatsoever that I'm a loony lefty. It'd give me summat to chuckle about. If you can't find any, then perhaps you'll allow me to describe anyone with a policy slightly to the left of Enver Hoxha as being a Nazi. Then we'd both be as childish as each other.

[hoolahoop]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Brown was NEVER going to be able to stay on as PM after the election result. That much was perfectly clear. With that as a starting point for discussion, the coalition I suggested was no more outlandish than the one we ended up with. Economically (and economics was always going to be the key issue) Labour, SNP and PC are far closer than the Liberals and Tories. (At least if you go by what the Liberals said in their manifesto, although I accept the flaw in my argument...)

Anyway, coalitions are all about compromises aren't they? I mean, why should Salmond and say Miliband have any more trouble getting on than Cable and Pickles, who both now sit in the Cabinet but are as far apart politically as me and thee.

Anyway, I'd be delighted if you could dig out some posts from me that give any indication whatsoever that I'm a loony lefty. It'd give me summat to chuckle about. If you can't find any, then perhaps you'll allow me to describe anyone with a policy slightly to the left of Enver Hoxha as being a Nazi. Then we'd both be as childish as each other.

Of course i don't think you're a 'loony lefty' and I haven't stated as such (presumably you missed the   thing at the end of my post). As for foraging around the past 3 years for each and every one of your posts on both this and the previous forum (some 6000 posts perhaps) to prove that my perception of you is correct well I neither have the time nor am I that sad.
This is not meant as a backtrack, but if you say you are what you are i.e. 'just left of centre' then I believe you as you have never given me cause to doubt your validity or honesty. I apologise as that is the perception I have gained, childish I am not and I certainly relish discussion on here with you even if you constantly refer to me as being 'childish' etc.   Oh to be young again!
Getting back to the point there could never ever have been a chance that a disparate group of 4 parties could ever work things out , whoever was the leader imo and we probably would have ended up with a 'forced' election far sooner than with this Coalition.
Now as to my own politics , I am no more comfortable with this coalition than you are. Although it has a mandate in terms of % of vote share , I too believe that the Liberals have conceeded far too much far too soon and that was possibly the price they had to pay for their shot at Govt.
In terms of political agendas both the coalition parties couldn't be more at odds on most matters but I am hoping (probably falsely) that as the heat turns up on Clegg/LibDems. then they will have to be seen/act to rein the Tories in or pull out to save their own party ......that's when the fun starts.
Btw was Hoxha a friend of Hitler.  
Bonsoir mon ami a demain........................

[jonrover]

Some corking political debate again on here, and some more of the short sighted Tory tripe from the usual suspects. When will they ever learn?

Back to the original topic. Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful. Potentially, this could be fantastic for my local area, according to a councillor I spoke to recently. If, nay when Labour get back in power, it could open the door to massive investment for Doncaster North, which can only be a good thing.

But one interesting thing I have heard from a very high ranking official from my union is that Labour will be forced to change by the union, it will simply have no choice, and Ed Miliband will be leant on from within the party by Unite sponsored MP's to make sure it happens.

Lets be right here, New Labour is dead. It lost 5 million voters in 13 years and is no longer representative of its historical electorate in my opinion. Its a tragedy that the harshest anti trade union laws in Europe still remain on the statute book after 13 years of Labour rule. These have to be relaxed, if not removed all together when Labour regain control and my union plan on pushing this all the way. The union will also campaign for a \"living wage\", possible £1-2 an hour more than the minimum wage is now. Either Labour looks after its historical electorate or there is a big chance Labour will lose its funding from Unite (and possibly a few more unions), which was worth £13 million last year. And without that sort of funding Labour is practically finished. And considering John Prescott admitted Labour hasn't got a penny to scratch its arse with, there could be interesting times ahead for the party.

[The Red Baron]

Shame I fell asleep last night- I missed some interesting debate.

A \"rainbow coalition\" would have had no chance. Apart from the fact it would have been inherently unstable there are two other big issues. First, who would have led it? Second, the West Lothian question writ large. Having SNP and PC members of a UK government would really have gone down well with English voters (who never had the chance to vote for these paries.)

The recent precedent for a minority government- Harold Wilson's in 1974- suggests it would have been short lived and would have produced an outright majority for the party at a subsequent election.

jonrover's point about Labour and Unite is interesting. Obviously as a trade unionist, jon will be hoping that Labour takes more notice of the unions. However, in terms of the wider electorate, such moves (especially if they are too blatantly obvious) could be taking the party down the kind of cul-de-sac it went down in the early 80s.

Fascinating stuff!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Actually, the last minority Government was John Major's. By 1997, he had lost his majority through by election defeats and relied on the UUP to keep him in power. (I don't recall the English electorate having a chance to vote for them.) And in reality, given the deep and vicious splits in the Tory Party in the early 90s, his administration was practically a minority one from the off. In that he had to make huge concessions to his own right wing to get legislation through. (Pace the infamous \"bas**rds\" quote.)

And that minority government was annihilated at the next election.

In any case, the situation after this year's election was unprecedented in living memory, in that no party was remotely close to a majority. So comparisons with Wilson in 74 are not really fair - he missed a majority by a whisker in Feb 74.

I fully agree that a rainbow coalition would have been unlikely to succeed. But as I've said before, it would have been no less fundamentally irrational than expecting Cable and Osbourne to agree on an economic policy. (Which they have fine of course - the Tories have said, \"Here's the economic policy\" and the Liberals have said, \"Ok\"). Clearly the Liberals thought a Labour coalition was a possibility. If it wasn't, then why on earth negotiate with Labour as they did. Of course, given what actually happened, it's entirely in the Liberals' interest to tell a story that there was no alternative and they did the principled thing. That's called Political Spin.

[The Red Baron]

I have to say I was thinking of the last time a General Election didn't produce an overall majority, rather than the party in power losing its majority. The Major Government did manage to last quite a long time in that state- and one can't help wondering whether the determination to cling on to power by whatever means contributed to the scale of its eventual defeat.

[Filo]

jonrover wrote:

Some corking political debate again on here, and some more of the short sighted Tory tripe from the usual suspects. When will they ever learn?

Back to the original topic. Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful. Potentially, this could be fantastic for my local area, according to a councillor I spoke to recently. If, nay when Labour get back in power, it could open the door to massive investment for Doncaster North, which can only be a good thing.

But one interesting thing I have heard from a very high ranking official from my union is that Labour will be forced to change by the union, it will simply have no choice, and Ed Miliband will be leant on from within the party by Unite sponsored MP's to make sure it happens.

Lets be right here, New Labour is dead. It lost 5 million voters in 13 years and is no longer representative of its historical electorate in my opinion. Its a tragedy that the harshest anti trade union laws in Europe still remain on the statute book after 13 years of Labour rule. These have to be relaxed, if not removed all together when Labour regain control and my union plan on pushing this all the way. The union will also campaign for a \"living wage\", possible £1-2 an hour more than the minimum wage is now. Either Labour looks after its historical electorate or there is a big chance Labour will lose its funding from Unite (and possibly a few more unions), which was worth £13 million last year. And without that sort of funding Labour is practically finished. And considering John Prescott admitted Labour hasn't got a penny to scratch its arse with, there could be interesting times ahead for the party.

As a former GMB shop steward, I`m with you comrade jonrover  

[LongbridgeMGRover]

whilst all the talk here is around Labour and the coalition, can i politely correct those in this debate refering to 'Liberals' and 'Liberal policy', this is actually LibDem, NOT Liberal.

i have always been a Liberal, in the true sense, and like others, did not approve of the merger with the SDP, the spiritual mushy centrist forerunner of New Labour.

believe it or not there is still a Liberal Party, that is nothing to do with this lot. we have councillors, some of us have stood for parliament [myself included] and we are now to the left of Labour.

we are opposed to a the EU and Trident, and in all things put freedom first.

so ends the party political broadcast.

[hoolahoop]

Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............

''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''

Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?

It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol

Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.

[Filo]

hoolahoop wrote:

Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Filo's account of democracy in action here goes............

''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''

Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?

It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol

Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.

Point of order! I think you`ll find that they were jonrover`s words, not mine, you`re a bit like Mr Clegg there hoola, failing to read the finer details  

[hoolahoop]

And you will see I quickly corrected them.sorry.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hoola. I answered your question about Clegg in the post at the top of P4. Granted, the typing on this sodding iPhone made every second word sound like the copper off Allo Allo but the gist is clear enough.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS Hoola, as with so many issues in this thread, you are living in the past on the block vote issue. The union votes were votes cast by individual union members. If 100,000 union members voted in total, and of those, say 50,000 voted for a given candidate, then that candidate received  one half of the total union vote. Since the total union vote was one third of the entire vote, that would equate to a total of 16.66% of the total college vote.

The block vote does not exist in this election. But there you go. Why let facts get in the way when you can just recycle 30 year out if date prejudices?

[hoolahoop]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

PS Hoola, as with so many issues in this thread, you are living in the past on the block vote issue. The union votes were votes cast by individual union members. If 100,000 union members voted in total, and of those, say 50,000 voted for a given candidate, then that candidate received  one half of the total union vote. Since the total union vote was one third of the entire vote, that would equate to a total of 16.66% of the total college vote.

The block vote does not exist in this election. But there you go. Why let facts get in the way when you can just recycle 30 year out if date prejudices?

I wasn't asking about the 'block vote' merely trying to exclude it when asking exactly how many members (i.e Party members/MP/MEP's), it was merely a question and not an inference.
Btw , as an aside, the Union vote was very relevant and entirely understandable as they do sponsor MP's but NOT part of my question.
Incidentally you have turned a mere question into a supposed 'out of date prejudice'.
An interesting fella and obviously very intelligent too but condescending in the extreme......thanks for the debate.
To summarise during this debate/lecture I have now been labelled as 'childish', 'out of date', 'prejudiced' and 'ill-informed'.    :cry:  :byebye

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

PS Hoola, as with so many issues in this thread, you are living in the past on the block vote issue. The union votes were votes cast by individual union members. If 100,000 union members voted in total, and of those, say 50,000 voted for a given candidate, then that candidate received  one half of the total union vote. Since the total union vote was one third of the entire vote, that would equate to a total of 16.66% of the total college vote.

The block vote does not exist in this election. But there you go. Why let facts get in the way when you can just recycle 30 year out if date prejudices?

I wasn't asking about the 'block vote' merely trying to exclude it when asking exactly how many members (i.e Party members/MP/MEP's), it was merely a question and not an inference.
Btw , as an aside, the Union vote was very relevant and entirely understandable as they do sponsor MP's but NOT part of my question.
Incidentally you have turned a mere question into a supposed 'out of date prejudice'.
An interesting fella and obviously very intelligent too but condescending in the extreme......thanks for the debate.
To summarise during this debate/lecture I have now been labelled as 'childish', 'out of date', 'prejudiced' and 'ill-informed'.    :cry:  :byebye

You think YOU should worry. I've been accused of being a patronising fcuker and Bob G's wide receiver.

As for the substance of your question, I don't know the precise number of voters.

The general principle was that MPs/SMPs/Wales representatives/MEPs had a vote each. The total sum of all their votes counted for 33.33% of the final sum. So, say there were 500 of them in total, and a candidate got 100 of their votes, it would equate to a vote of 6.66% for him/her. There were several hundred thousand individual Labour Members each with a single vote and the same 33.33% total sum. And again, several hundred thousand INDIVIDUAL trade union members who voted, with again the same 33.33% sum.

All I was meaning in tonight's bit of invenctive is that this is a world away from the 70s and 80s, when unions held open air, public \"hands up\" votes, and if the majority voted one way, ALL that Union's vote would be cast in that direction. That was a recipe for intimidation, blackmail and subversion by the far left. It is as far in the past as Pat Lally and Mickey French.

[donnyproletarian]

wrote another post on here and yet again failed to materialise after writing war and peace.But just to summarise this is my take on the situation.
1 a socialist movement based on bread and butter principles relevant to the needs of working people has never been more relevant to now.
2 We know the media is a powerful tool in the hands of their paymasters but has someone once said you cant fool all of the people all of the time .
3 Labour was formed to give the common people a voice in Parliment but has been hijacked by the SDP , new labour and the like.
4 The road to hell is paved with good intentions .Proof just look round at leading labour politicians who were once considered left .What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loose his soul.
5 we need a re commitment to part 4 clause 4 of the labour constitution and to be straight with the people we are claiming to represent.
6 Marx did not get it all right but by god he got most of it right .POLICIES AIMED AT WORKING PEOPLE WILL BRING THEM BACK TO THE POLLS NOT BACKROOM DEALS WITH A RUTHLESS SYSTEM WHOSE SOLE EXISTENCE IS THE ABJECT SQUALER WE ARE SURROUNDED BY TODAY.
PS.rovers till i die

[donnyproletarian]

Whats wrong with the block vote .Put the shoe on the other foot and picture this.I go to work and have no choice but to have my wages paid into my bank account.Said money is the taken along with countless others and put in coffers that not only accumulates interest but pays out fat bonuses to leeches who are partly responsible for the current economis calimity.To rub salt in the wound a percentage of my wages is then contributed to the tories for services rendered.Am i missing anything .Surely the issue should be making the trade union leaders accountable to its menbers and encouraging open democracy.Imagine the panic if everyone went down to their bank and withdrew our money.Instead of commiting economic suicide for ourselves by withdrawing our labour ,lets withdraw our cash and watch the b@@@@@rds squirm.

[jonrover]

Filo wrote:

jonrover wrote:

Some corking political debate again on here, and some more of the short sighted Tory tripe from the usual suspects. When will they ever learn?

Back to the original topic. Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful. Potentially, this could be fantastic for my local area, according to a councillor I spoke to recently. If, nay when Labour get back in power, it could open the door to massive investment for Doncaster North, which can only be a good thing.

But one interesting thing I have heard from a very high ranking official from my union is that Labour will be forced to change by the union, it will simply have no choice, and Ed Miliband will be leant on from within the party by Unite sponsored MP's to make sure it happens.

Lets be right here, New Labour is dead. It lost 5 million voters in 13 years and is no longer representative of its historical electorate in my opinion. Its a tragedy that the harshest anti trade union laws in Europe still remain on the statute book after 13 years of Labour rule. These have to be relaxed, if not removed all together when Labour regain control and my union plan on pushing this all the way. The union will also campaign for a \"living wage\", possible £1-2 an hour more than the minimum wage is now. Either Labour looks after its historical electorate or there is a big chance Labour will lose its funding from Unite (and possibly a few more unions), which was worth £13 million last year. And without that sort of funding Labour is practically finished. And considering John Prescott admitted Labour hasn't got a penny to scratch its arse with, there could be interesting times ahead for the party.

As a former GMB shop steward, I`m with you comrade jonrover  

You'll do for me Filo!

I'm a rep too, just about finished my basic training. Its quite funny really, I was one of those people who paid my union subs every month, and just waited until I needed the union for anything. Being voted on to the reps committee, and also the branch committee, you see the other side of the coin, and get all the shit that comes with it! But I'm really enjoying it even though it sometimes feels like a thankless task! I actually see the position I'm in now as an opportunity to re-educate myself and perhaps enhance my prospects career wise.

[jonrover]

hoolahoop wrote:

Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............

''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''

Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?

It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol

Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is? I legitimately get two votes, and got permission to vote on behalf of the other three because they couldn't be arsed, which to be honest really gets on my goat. Why people throw away their chance to have their say in something, which must be important to them since they pay the political levy is beyond me. As it happens, Ed Miliband was their first choice anyway, the only difference being I made sure Dave was their last preference!
 
As for a union block vote. Its b*llocks, utter b*llocks. All union votes were cast individually. End of story. You want to stop reading Murdoch's trash and try the beano instead.

[The Red Baron]

The Red Baron wrote:

There's quite a lot of assumptions in there, not least that Labour will put themselves forward as a \"sensible left of centre alternative\" when the next General Election comes around. They didn't do that in the early 80s, after all.

Something I posted the other day. Reading some of the contributions on here I can see there's a strong appetite for Labour to \"reclaim its roots.\" Which is fine so long as the party doesn't make itself unelectable in the process. The rhetoric spouted by the likes of Bob Crow, Paul Kenney, Derek Simpson et al might strike a chord with Labour activists, but it will not win back the voters who have abandoned Labour.

There's a common misconception that political parties have to be \"more themselves\" in order to appeal to the voters. The Tories suffered from it after 1997 and chose their leaders (especially Iain Duncan-Smith) accordingly. What good did it do them? I now see Labour doing the same.

[hoolahoop]

jonrover wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............

''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''

Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?

It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol

Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is? I legitimately get two votes, and got permission to vote on behalf of the other three because they couldn't be arsed, which to be honest really gets on my goat. Why people throw away their chance to have their say in something, which must be important to them since they pay the political levy is beyond me. As it happens, Ed Miliband was their first choice anyway, the only difference being I made sure Dave was their last preference!
 
As for a union block vote. Its b*llocks, utter b*llocks. All union votes were cast individually. End of story. You want to stop reading Murdoch's trash and try the beano instead.

Are you serious jonrover, is it right just to toss your votes over to others to vote on your behalf......try doing that at a proper election ! This is the sort of thing that happens in 3rd. World countries and the very reason why votes are vetted!
In the leadership election, David Milliband won in 588 of the 650 seats; an overwhelming 'thrashing' of the eventual winner Ed Milliband and received only 8% of the total donations registered. This was undoubtedly a complete 'stitch up'by the Unions to achieve a result for what can only be described as 'their man' and still folk say their is no such thing as a block vote ? OK I agree it's not a 'block vote' in the traditional sense but not far away from it.
Union sources said and I quote....''the bosses of the 4 big Unions held a secret summit to agree a STOP DAVID MILLIBAND candidate shortly after the General Election''. The bosses of the GMB, Unison, CWU, and Unison must be beaming from ear to ear today.
As for reading the Beano, I must admit that it has always been my comic of choice.

Imo the Labour Party has got the wrong man, nay the weakest man even, to stand their corner on behalf of the 'working man'in the face of the Coalition and all it is preparing to do.

Prepare yourselves for another ''winter of discontent' and disruption. When you have to go down difficult economic avenues , the last thing you need is a reactionary Trade Union movement! Bear in mind the difficulties that are being faced in Greece by their current Govt.in the face of civil disobedience and disruption!!

Surely this is a time for level heads not.......off with their heads.

[jonrover]

hoolahoop wrote:

jonrover wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............

''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''

Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?

It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol

Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is? I legitimately get two votes, and got permission to vote on behalf of the other three because they couldn't be arsed, which to be honest really gets on my goat. Why people throw away their chance to have their say in something, which must be important to them since they pay the political levy is beyond me. As it happens, Ed Miliband was their first choice anyway, the only difference being I made sure Dave was their last preference!
 
As for a union block vote. Its b*llocks, utter b*llocks. All union votes were cast individually. End of story. You want to stop reading Murdoch's trash and try the beano instead.

Are you serious jonrover, is it right just to toss your votes over to others to vote on your behalf......try doing that at a proper election ! This is the sort of thing that happens in 3rd. World countries and the very reason why votes are vetted!
In the leadership election, David Milliband won in 588 of the 650 seats; an overwhelming 'thrashing' of the eventual winner Ed Milliband and received only 8% of the total donations registered. This was undoubtedly a complete 'stitch up'by the Unions to achieve a result for what can only be described as 'their man' and still folk say their is no such thing as a block vote ? OK I agree it's not a 'block vote' in the traditional sense but not far away from it.
Union sources said and I quote....''the bosses of the 4 big Unions held a secret summit to agree a STOP DAVID MILLIBAND candidate shortly after the General Election''. The bosses of the GMB, Unison, CWU, and Unison must be beaming from ear to ear today.
As for reading the Beano, I must admit that it has always been my comic of choice.

Imo the Labour Party has got the wrong man, nay the weakest man even, to stand their corner on behalf of the 'working man'in the face of the Coalition and all it is preparing to do.

Prepare yourselves for another ''winter of discontent' and disruption. When you have to go down difficult economic avenues , the last thing you need is a reactionary Trade Union movement! Bear in mind the difficulties that are being faced in Greece by their current Govt.in the face of civil disobedience and disruption!!

Surely this is a time for level heads not.......off with their heads.

With regard to the vote, I still can't see your problem. They all supported Ed, I made sure they voted accordingly! Get over it! And if Labour have chosen the weakest man then why are you making such an issue of it, along with all the right wing media?

And I am completely sick and tired of people saying there HASto be cuts. The deficit as a measure of GDP, without checking, is around 50-60% After the second world war the welfare state, NHS, comprehensive education and decent council housing were all build on the back of a deficit of well over 100% of GDP. The cuts agenda is a complete myth, and simple Tory ideology to finish off what Thatcher started.

There are justifiable alternatives. Tax evasion and avoidance costs the economy £120 Billion a year, scrap trident, saving another £80 billion, let America sort out Afghanistan, saving another £30 Billion, and make the f**kers who caused this mess pay back what they owe, plus interest. There is also an idea that every millionaire in the country should pay a one off levy on death of 20%, with the interest on that 20% paid until they kick the bucket. And believe it or not a survey of those eligible for this were mostly supportive of it!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich

But the Con-Dem plans just do not add up to me. They will destroy any growth we have in the economy. Growth will reduce the debt as a measure of GDP. Sticking possibly a million people on the dole will not grow us out of debt. It will lower tax revenues and increase benefit payments, and will affect the private sector as businesses go to the wall because no one is spending. I don't give a shite what crap the IMF spout, unless the Con-Dems drastically water down their plans we are heading for a recession like we have not seen for 70 years. If you don't believe me, look across the Irish sea.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-cameron-needs-to-learn-from-ireland-2038887.html

[BillyStubbsTears]

jonrover wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

jonrover wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Extremely enjoyable debate, however I was very interested to read Johnrover's account of democracy in action here goes............

''Personally, I voted for Ed five times, (as a Labour party member, Unite political levy payer, and for 3 of my relatives who consigned their vote to the green recycling box) and am delighted he was successful.''

Jeez there was no wonder he won , incidentally could anybody tell me the amount of votes cast individually i.e. none Union block votes ?

It was interesting to read that Longbridge (a Liberal) now considered his party to be left of Labour, perhaps you can find a place for Billy in your squad. lol

Finally are we all trying to put a square Clegg in a round hole and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is? I legitimately get two votes, and got permission to vote on behalf of the other three because they couldn't be arsed, which to be honest really gets on my goat. Why people throw away their chance to have their say in something, which must be important to them since they pay the political levy is beyond me. As it happens, Ed Miliband was their first choice anyway, the only difference being I made sure Dave was their last preference!
 
As for a union block vote. Its b*llocks, utter b*llocks. All union votes were cast individually. End of story. You want to stop reading Murdoch's trash and try the beano instead.

Are you serious jonrover, is it right just to toss your votes over to others to vote on your behalf......try doing that at a proper election ! This is the sort of thing that happens in 3rd. World countries and the very reason why votes are vetted!
In the leadership election, David Milliband won in 588 of the 650 seats; an overwhelming 'thrashing' of the eventual winner Ed Milliband and received only 8% of the total donations registered. This was undoubtedly a complete 'stitch up'by the Unions to achieve a result for what can only be described as 'their man' and still folk say their is no such thing as a block vote ? OK I agree it's not a 'block vote' in the traditional sense but not far away from it.
Union sources said and I quote....''the bosses of the 4 big Unions held a secret summit to agree a STOP DAVID MILLIBAND candidate shortly after the General Election''. The bosses of the GMB, Unison, CWU, and Unison must be beaming from ear to ear today.
As for reading the Beano, I must admit that it has always been my comic of choice.

Imo the Labour Party has got the wrong man, nay the weakest man even, to stand their corner on behalf of the 'working man'in the face of the Coalition and all it is preparing to do.

Prepare yourselves for another ''winter of discontent' and disruption. When you have to go down difficult economic avenues , the last thing you need is a reactionary Trade Union movement! Bear in mind the difficulties that are being faced in Greece by their current Govt.in the face of civil disobedience and disruption!!

Surely this is a time for level heads not.......off with their heads.

With regard to the vote, I still can't see your problem. They all supported Ed, I made sure they voted accordingly! Get over it! And if Labour have chosen the weakest man then why are you making such an issue of it, along with all the right wing media?

And I am completely sick and tired of people saying there HASto be cuts. The deficit as a measure of GDP, without checking, is around 50-60% After the second world war the welfare state, NHS, comprehensive education and decent council housing were all build on the back of a deficit of well over 100% of GDP. The cuts agenda is a complete myth, and simple Tory ideology to finish off what Thatcher started.

There are justifiable alternatives. Tax evasion and avoidance costs the economy £120 Billion a year, scrap trident, saving another £80 billion, let America sort out Afghanistan, saving another £30 Billion, and make the fcukers who caused this mess pay back what they owe, plus interest. There is also an idea that every millionaire in the country should pay a one off levy on death of 20%, with the interest on that 20% paid until they kick the bucket. And believe it or not a survey of those eligible for this were mostly supportive of it!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/15/deficit-crisis-tax-the-rich

But the Con-Dem plans just do not add up to me. They will destroy any growth we have in the economy. Growth will reduce the debt as a measure of GDP. Sticking possibly a million people on the dole will not grow us out of debt. It will lower tax revenues and increase benefit payments, and will affect the private sector as businesses go to the wall because no one is spending. I don't give a shite what crap the IMF spout, unless the Con-Dems drastically water down their plans we are heading for a recession like we have not seen for 70 years. If you don't believe me, look across the Irish sea.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-cameron-needs-to-learn-from-ireland-2038887.html

Post of the thread Jon. You have hit the nail on the head. The Con-Dems have been allowed to get away with defining the deficit as something that can only he fixed by cuts. That is simply wrong. There is, and always has been an alternative. Growth naturally reduces the effect of a deficit.

The issue is one of political choice. Fostering growth, through Government fiscal expansion is THE classic Keynesian counter-cyclical response to a recession. That was what Governments worldwide did for 40 years until Thatcherite and Reaganite administrations took us on a wild experiment in Austrian School monetarist economics. That approach saw state intervention as inherently evil whereas unregulated markets were the best approach.

I think the experience of the last 3 years has nailed that particular piece of ideology.

Miliband struck precisely the right chord by hammering on this point in today's speech. The Tories simply cannot be allowed to dominate the argument in There Is No Alternative terms. They are wrong and potentially dangerously so. Even if they are right, the price will be years of hardship for ordinary folk and the dismantling of public services that make society a fairer and less brutal place. We KNOW that will be the outcome because that is precisely what happened the last time the Tories set about trying to shrink Government, in the early 80s.

The next issue that Miliband should hammer the Tories on is this lie that Labour were wild overspenders. It is simply and demonstrably untrue. In 2007, before the recession struck, Govt spending was lower as a proportion of GDP than it had been under Major in 1995! What the Tories are saying us that even THIS level of public expenditure is ideologically unacceptable to them. The party that presided over the destruction of OUR societies and allowed the nation's schools, railways and hospitals to rot away is saying \"Let's do it all again.\"

Miliband's speech today was an excellent first step on the road to presenting a fresh, credible and persuasive counter argument. We are back into a political debate where clear principles and values separate the two sides. Bring it on.

[hoolahoop]

''and will Billy eventually tell me what he would have done if he had been Clegg following that election result ? What would he, in his shoes, have looked for in terms of 'real' Coalitions and what would have been his terms ? It is irrelevant whether or not you like/dislike the fella.
Academic now I realise but nevertheless interesting to the debate.''

Come on Billy, you know you haven't really answered this question yet (despite your reply to the contrary). The question was posed purely out of interest and I am fully aware that you despise the man but surely you can give us your thoughts of how and why you would have played out this scenario.
The question is not designed to trick you but merely to see your 'full take' of his situation as it was and what he should have wanted and should have expected as concessions from the 2 major parties. Btw what could either party have been expected to concede given their hunger for power.
Did his negotiators get out-manouvered , lose the plot, or did they just consider the prize do you think ?
As discussed before this could either destroy their party in much the same way as the Liberal ''Jeremy bites the pillow'' fiasco of my youth or if they can somehow be seen to influence correctly the course of what I too see as over-reactionary fiscal policies eventually enhance the public perception of their party.
Why did they feel the need to 'hook up' with a party that the majority of their rank and file members abhorred when the more natural partners would have been the Labour Party ?
Why couldn't they come to an agreement with the Labour Party (with or without GB), they obviously made some attempt to and were obviously not happy with the Tory offers on the table at that time ? Were they offered even less influence maybe ?
I know there are loads of questions in my post but I am personally still intrigued at how the game went and am interested to consider your perception of all that went on.
P.S. I know you dislike Clegg so please don't labour that point again. lol

jonrover , I will come back re. your version of a democratic voting system later and the other points you have raised

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've told you Hoola. It's a non-question. I would never have BEEN in that situation were I a politician, because I couldn't get myself into a situation where I'd say, \"Vote for us, then we'll make our minds up AFTER the Election on what we actually stand for.\" It's a perversion of the entire democratic process.

He and the Lib-Dem party stood on a mannifesto whose economic policy was pretty much identical to that of Labour. Therefore, the only PRINCIPLED thing to do would have been to look at ways in which those key economic policies could be put into practice. If that meant putting together a coaltion that was inherently unstable, and perhaps would have crashed after a year then so be it.

THAT would have been what a politician and a party that actually had policies that they believed in would have done.

Instead, what they actually did was to jettison ALL the key macro-economic policies that they had stood on, justifying this by saying, \"Ah, well, in the last couple of days, Greece has been in trouble, so that means that everything we argued for previously was wrong, and the Tories were right all along.\"

It is political mendacity of the very, very highest degree and they deserve to be shot to pieces for it. They have won seats by utterly deceiving voters, and the voters have already started to crucify them for it according to the opinion polls over the last 3 months, where the Lib Dems are on a fast-track to oblivion.

Now, had they formed a coaltion with Labour, even a minority administration, the chances are that they would have been in power for at least 18 months or so, primarily because the main partners would have been in strong agreement on the broad thrust of the economic policy - namely to begin to reduce the deficit at a measured rate. The Tories would not have dared to bring the Government down immediately, as they would have taken the wrath of the electorate for playing politics at a time of national trouble. In any case, the Tories alone, even with DUP support could not have outvoted Labour plus the Lib-Dems.

It was perfectly possible to have such a minority coaltion Government. if it wasn't, then why on earth did the Lib Dems have serious negotiations with Labour after the Election?

The Lib Dems could potentially have reaped some big rewards from this. Their first bonus would have been to take the scalp of Gordon Brown. They could have presented this as:

\"We know that 60% of you the voters voted for us and Labour together. We have a very similar approach to getting the country out of the recession. So we are prepared to work together, even though it will be politically difficult. But we also know how deeply disliked Gordon Brown is, and we insist on his removal as a pre-requisite. We will then work with Labour to put the foundations of a recovery package together, working with them for the good of the country on policies that we both believe in. It may well be that, as we come out of recession, and the foundations have been laid, we will find it harder to find common ground, and it may be that in 18-24 months, there will have to be another election to produce a stronger overall Parliamentary majority. In the meantime, we will also aim to ensure that the AV system is implemented in time for that Election. We trust you, the electorate to see that this is a far from ideal scenario, but that we are acting in accordance with aour principles, b)the policies that we advocated before the election and c) the National Interest.\"

It's a high-minded, principled stance I know, but wasn't that supposed to be what the Lib-Dems were all about?

That way, the Lib Dems would be in a win-win situation. they would have got rid of the bogey-man Brown, demonstrated their maturity and more importantly, demonstrated their TRUSTWORTHINESS. They would have been working in Government to implement policies that they had actually advocated.

Instead, they have been shown to be utterly unprincipled, and prepared to turn 180 degrees at the drop of a hat on THE most important issue facing the country. How on earth can anyone ever trust them again?

[bobjimwilly]

I've said it before and it seems suitable to say it again: \"VOTE FOR BST AT THE NEXT ELECTION!\"  B)