coalition and mockery of manifesto

beverick

pomtarr wrote:

BBC headline made me chuckle: "Clegg in Brown and Cameron talks"

Shouldn't that be: "Clegg in Brown, and Cameron talks"

Puerile, I know...

It's not purile at all.

The standard of journalism and the use of English at the BBC is woeful. It's also highly amusing sometimes as what they say in a five work headline is rarely what they mean.

"Street killing man 'heard voices'" is another one in need of additional punctuation. My first thought was what did the street hear and why did it feel the need to kill someone.

Bob

rolf_f

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The electorate have comprehensively rejected "Old" Labour and have now realised that "Nulabour" is just the same with a thin venner of Teflon, that was slowly eroded from within.

They've comprehensively rejected Cameron and Clegg as well so what is your point?!!

Radioactiveman

tebbit wrote:

The UK doesn't have the in-house expertise to construct its own nuclear power stations anymore, they'll either be French or American, so we will keep the lights on but won't get any long term technological advantage. I think it was on this forum where someone stated about Maggie Thatcher pumping money into nuclear power, she ran it down, wasn't it the current prime minister who said that election manifestos were not legally binding documents.

Dont quite agree it will be British construction that build it , but as you say it will be an areva or westinghouse design if the government get their finger out. And yes Margaret destroyed plenty of british industry in fact anything with British at the start of it got sold of and subsequently nose dived.

As for not getting a long term technological advantage this isnt a bomb competition anymore unless I am missing your point? They will be built on british soil, jobs in construction and afterwards so we might not own them but they will benefit uk people.

Frank the tank

What a farce this horse trading is developing into.

FWIW I believe as labour came nowhere near the winning post it should be left up to the lib dems and tories to try and sort something out. If they can't then let the tories limp along with a minority government until they realise it's pointless.

One thing is for sure the lib dems have shown their true colours and I would think a lot of their supporters may well be disappointed now.

Mettan

Frank the tank wrote:

FWIW I believe as labour came nowhere near the winning post it should be left up to the lib dems and tories to try and sort something out. If they can't then let the tories limp along with a minority government until they realise it's pointless..

Agreed.

rake

why dont brown and cameron form an alliance and forget clegg. thery just about as compatible.

SteveR_100Milers

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The electorate have comprehensively rejected "Old" Labour and have now realised that "Nulabour" is just the same with a thin venner of Teflon, that was slowly eroded from within.
Note which party gained seats, note which parties lost them!
The electorate is finally waking up and seeing the ruinous effects of Labour's spend & borrow policies.

I'm sorry but you are way off here - even the most one eyed Tory would disagree wth you.
NL is as far from OL as LD is from Tory right now! There isn't even room for Prescott who was a sop to the Union movement in NL, let alone militant activists. I should know I was in both once. Let's suppose that David Milliband is the next labour leader, not a wholly unlkely outcome - he is about as centre left right as Ken Clarke....

shouldbeinbed

morstar wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The electorate have comprehensively rejected "Old" Labour and have now realised that "Nulabour" is just the same with a thin venner of Teflon, that was slowly eroded from within.
Note which party gained seats, note which parties lost them!
The electorate is finally waking up and seeing the ruinous effects of Labour's spend & borrow policies.

Considering the anti labour momentum over the last 2 years and the subsequent failure of the tories to win, I think dancing on the grave may be a little premature.

The next 18 months are critical to both parties. Labour need to avoid imploding and the tories need to win trust from an obviously sceptical public.

Talking about veneer. That is exactly why the tories didn't win. Those of us who remember are curious to see how quickly the politics of greed resurface from under the thin veneer of appearing as caring tories.

hear hear.

Governments that have presided over the past 18 months that Labour have, and have 3/4 of the prosecuted MP's over the expenses scandal and ones like Hazel Blears that can count themselves exceptionally lucky to have avoided proscecution are usually obliterated by the opposition - think 1997.

Cameron had such a massive advantage in fighting a too old and collapsing government and Browns gaffe laded campaign, the fact that The Tories don't have a 100 seat working majority and Blair like feel good vibe in the country is a massive fail for them.

Labour lost but not by anywhere near as much as they could have expected to and that the Tories didn't even make the bare minimum 326 seats is very telling. There's enough of us that remember the 80's and the Major regimen collapse not to be fooled by Nu-Tory call me Dave and look I'm not wearing a tie.

bompington

So what you're saying, shouldbeinbed, is that Labour might be tired, sleazy and incompetent now, but you're never going to forget what the tories were like 20+ years ago?
Next thing you'll be posting that you've seen some dodgy looking tories riding round Manchester on expensive bikes.

A couple of interesting stats to put the less than impressive conservative victory in perspective:
- Only 24% of eligible voters voted tory this year. In 2005, 22% voted for Labour
- If the proportion of votes had gone the other way (Labour 36%, Con 28%) then Labour would have a 64 seat majority.

I should point out that I am not actually a conservative supporter, I didn't vote for them this time though I have previously and may again - it's just that I'm always a bit taken aback at the primeval tribalism of politics in this country.

ratsbeyfus

bompington wrote:

Next thing you'll be posting that you've seen some dodgy looking tories riding round Manchester on expensive bikes.

tebbit

You are missing my point from the position of the being a nation that developed our own technology in this field we are now an importer of this technology, we hear that the UK is "good" at development and technology Formula 1 being an example, but there is the potential for this to erode as well.

For the Tory "fail" to be an accurate comparison, the comparison is not of the Nu-Lab rise to power of the 1997 election, this election just gone needs to be compared to Kinnock's attempt in the early nineties.

There is a bloody great elephant in the room, the fiscal deficit, with the structural changes in the world's economy God knows what is going to happen to the UK, these are going to be interesting times unfortunately.

"What did you do in the recession of 2009 and 2010 Daddy?"

"I spent it as an expat in the Ukraine, because I got made redundant in the UK."

oldwelshman

Well now it is getting worse
Old Brown has gone (rightly so IMO) it looks like theres possibility of the more obvious coalition between liblab, now I see Hague on TV squirming and now offering to "go the extra mile" and offer a referendum on electoral reform, something they were 100% against. This is just desperation and a power trip!!
If ll these parties can all of a sudden compromise on such major polices then it may not be a bad thing as we may get some decent policies gareed cross party

SteveR_100Milers

tebbit wrote:

You are missing my point from the position of the being a nation that developed our own technology in this field we are now an importer of this technology, we hear that the UK is "good" at development and technology Formula 1 being an example, but there is the potential for this to erode as well.

For the Tory "fail" to be an accurate comparison, the comparison is not of the Nu-Lab rise to power of the 1997 election, this election just gone needs to be compared to Kinnock's attempt in the early nineties.

There is a bloody great elephant in the room, the fiscal deficit, with the structural changes in the world's economy God knows what is going to happen to the UK, these are going to be interesting times unfortunately.

"What did you do in the recession of 2009 and 2010 Daddy?"

"I spent it as an expat in the Ukraine, because I got made redundant in the UK."

F1 in recent years has been largely bankrolled by international (none British) car manufacturers. Despite the Japanese wiothdrawals, this is still the case, even if it's 'just' an engine deal. As a technology business F1 doesn't really generate much in the way of domestic income (other than some good salaries for a handful of engineers

Mettan

oldwelshman wrote:

If ll these parties can all of a sudden compromise on such major polices then it may not be a bad thing as we may get some decent policies gareed cross party

If it is LibLab, will be interesting to see whether the Libdems can temper Labour's Authoritarian control-freakery - LibDems want to scrap ID cards etc - Labour want to force everyone in Britain into the scheme. Interesting times ahead.

finchy

oldwelshman wrote:

Old Brown has gone (rightly so IMO) it looks like theres possibility of the more obvious coalition between liblab,

For no other reason than the look on Cameron's face, I would love to see that happen.

Cressers

"If it is LibLab, will be interesting to see whether the Libdems can temper Labour's Authoritarian control-freakery - LibDems want to scrap ID cards etc - Labour want to force everyone in Britain into the scheme. Interesting times ahead."

I suspect that a 'compromise' agreed would be the continuation of the current 'voluntary' scheme of creeping registration then snap compulsion once take-up reached 80%. NuLab have invested far too much political capital and taxpayers' money to be humilliated by the scrapping of the ID cards/NIR database and they won't forgo such a powerful method of control.

But as I posted in a sepreate thread a LibLabOther coalition havn't the seats to form a majority. They would need 100% support all of the time and that just isn't going to happen. This is Mandelson's last gasp attempt to prevent the inevitable, a minority tory supply and confidence govt.

shouldbeinbed

bompington wrote:

So what you're saying, shouldbeinbed, is that Labour might be tired, sleazy and incompetent now, but you're never going to forget what the tories were like 20+ years ago?
Next thing you'll be posting that you've seen some dodgy looking tories riding round Manchester on expensive bikes.

A couple of interesting stats to put the less than impressive conservative victory in perspective:
- Only 24% of eligible voters voted tory this year. In 2005, 22% voted for Labour
- If the proportion of votes had gone the other way (Labour 36%, Con 28%) then Labour would have a 64 seat majority.

I should point out that I am not actually a conservative supporter, I didn't vote for them this time though I have previously and may again - it's just that I'm always a bit taken aback at the primeval tribalism of politics in this country.

no thats not what 'm saying at all

& you're getting me confused with Will and his interesting take on the bikes people should ride

It's nothing to do with tribalism, I do remember what the tories were like 20 years ago and I see an awful lot of similar ideology and grass roots supporters saying the same things now, New-labour didn't eradicate Old Labour thinking in the same way the Call me Dave Conservatism hasn't eradicated the old style thinking of the Tory party and to be honest the tories have been less unstinting, vocal and 'blinkered' (for want of a better word) in their support of Dave than New Labour ever were of Blair.

Camerons position and the still very recent leftward move to more social Conservatism is far less embedded amongst the wider party, not as secure and stable as New Labours rightward swing has become and is not yet enough to convince me that there won't be a rightward move away from what people have been offered to vote for this time round.

I'm also annoyed that the Tories insist on saying a Lib/Lab pact would see another unelected Prime Minister. None of them got a mandate to govern and whoever takes the reins of a coalition government is going to be an unlelected Prime Minister. its transparent conservative only spin and that it keeps getting harped on about does worry me about how the tories view our gullibility.

Mettan

Cressers wrote:

such a powerful method of control.

Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind

Pross

It's becoming a complete farce, the party that came third by whatever electoral system you choose is the one holding the cards and getting their own way. I reckon Cameron should just let Labour form a multi party coalition and then when it falls apart in 12 months time he will probably win a landslide due to all the disillusioned among the electorate.

Also, as Rake has said surely a Tory / Labour coalition would be the best suited. Over the past 13 years we have regularly heard the argument that their policies were almost the same so the only thing preventing it would appear to be their historical differences. No one could argue with the two biggest parties joining together to govern.

I'm also fed up of hearing people saying 'this shows our electoral system needs reforming'. It doesn't, it shows the opposite - if we end up with PR we'll have this horse trading at every election. We need a party with a strong mandate to push through legislation quickly and smoothly. If we don't like what the do we boot them out at the next opportunity. With PR we'd be likely to get a Lib / Lab pact forever!

bompington

Mettan wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

If ll these parties can all of a sudden compromise on such major polices then it may not be a bad thing as we may get some decent policies gareed cross party

If it is LibLab, will be interesting to see whether the Libdems can temper Labour's Authoritarian control-freakery - LibDems want to scrap ID cards etc - Labour want to force everyone in Britain into the scheme. Interesting times ahead.

I think it's a reasonable guess that Labour would be quite happy to drop that one, in fact they would do more or less anything to stay in power, it's the only aim they seem to have these days

BigG67

Pross wrote:

It's becoming a complete farce, the party that came third by whatever electoral system you choose is the one holding the cards and getting their own way. I reckon Cameron should just let Labour form a multi party coalition and then when it falls apart in 12 months time he will probably win a landslide due to all the disillusioned among the electorate.!

I wouldnt assume that Cameron will survive. Seems that a fair few of the Tory faithful are asking who he could fail to win a majority given everything that Labour have been blamed for and the general dissregard that the electorate has for Brown.

We could well have 3 new leaders at the major parties by the end of the year if Clegg gets this wrong.

Pross

I think any Tory leader is still living with the electorate's scars given by Maggie to some extent and there's a large part of the country who are scared to be seen to vote for them. 37% of the electorate voted for them but I hardly know anyone who's prepared to admit it :shock:

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

I think any Tory leader is still living with the electorate's scars given by Maggie to some extent and there's a large part of the country who are scared to be seen to vote for them. 37% of the electorate voted for them but I hardly know anyone who's prepared to admit it :shock:

You clearly don't live in Richmond then. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/cons ... 5/richmond

Cressers

I wonder about the people who voted labour. Havn't the noticed what has happened these last thirteen years?

While electoral reform is on the table, shouldn't the vote be withdrawn from the sort of people who shop at DFS?

finchy

Cressers wrote:

I wonder about the people who voted labour. Havn't the noticed what has happened these last thirteen years?

While electoral reform is on the table, shouldn't the vote be withdrawn from the sort of people who shop at DFS?

The problem is, what choice did people have at the election. It's not just a party's failing, it's the whole deregulated neo-liberal system.

So given the choice between Labour, who supported the failed system, and Tory, who supported the failed system, who should people vote for?

I've never been into DFS. What's it like, and why should people who shop there be banned?

carrock

well I think the daily mash have summed it up perfectly again


Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said Mr Brown's statement 'smoothed the way towards a stable government' involving an as yet unidentified prime minister, a collection of lying, two-faced whores, some Welsh, Scottish, Irish and possibly Cornish nationalists, a lady from Brighton who drives a car made of yeast, as well as the Roly Polys, the Wurzels and the Average White Band.

guinea

Cressers wrote:

While electoral reform is on the table, shouldn't the vote be withdrawn from the sort of people who shop at DFS?

While we're at it, we should withdraw it from anyone who watches Sky news, reads the Mail or looks at the pictures in the Sun.

Also, voters who think that any party won this election or who are complaining that they might get a prime minister they didn't vote for should have their voting rights removed. You need to understand how our system works. As an addition point, there's no point complaining about the system and then blocking reform.

Furthermore, anyone who hasn't decided who they want until they get to the voting booth should just have the common sense to stay at home.

As a final point we should no longer have televised debates. We don't need a good presenter we need a good thinker. Having people vote for slick career politicos is a very bad thing.

SteveR_100Milers

Cressers wrote:

I wonder about the people who voted labour. Havn't the noticed what has happened these last thirteen years?

While electoral reform is on the table, shouldn't the vote be withdrawn from the sort of people who shop at DFS?

This doesnt even deserve a sensible answer, so I won't give it one you tit

Pross

bompington wrote:

Next thing you'll be posting that you've seen some dodgy looking tories riding round Manchester on expensive bikes.

Nothing dodgy there - I think you'll find they have an expenses receipt to prove ownership

passout

I live on the edge of two seats - just outside Preston Lancs. The one I live in is rural and got 52% Conservative votes including mine. The other is urban and got around 50% Labour votes I think with Conservatives in 4th. place. People talk about the split between Scotland, England and Wales but I bet the difference between the rural and urban vote would be far more clear-cut.

Labour are an urban party, their votes come from towns/cities - they have done nothing for Rural England (possibly Britain) over the last 10 years. Fox-hunting, post office closures and a distinct lack of interest in rural affairs mark a pretty miserable time in the countryside. More controversially the handling of foot on mouth was criticised by many. Personally I want them out.

Typically the Libs Dems can't decide whether they are pro or anti hunting as a party. I guess the answer is anti but they didn't want to loose the rural vote, so they sat on the fence.

This post has no particular point as such, I just wanted to highlight this election from a rural perspective as others have done for Scotland. Significant parts of this country do want a Conservative government and, above all else, want Labour out.