General Election 2010

[Gemmill 46086]

Very little mention/fuss about it from what I've seen either.

[Problem Child 0]

Saw this a few days back, a blatant and disgusting abuse of power. What kind of two faced scumbag is Clegg? All this hot air about open accountable government and at the first sniff of power he turns into a wannabe despot. What the rest of the political reforms will bring doesn’t bear thinking about.

[Meenzer 15734]

 

Plus ça change...

Edited May 14, 2010 by Meenzer

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Anyone watch Question Time last night? Thought it was quite interesting and that Simon Hughes was't really that convinced himself when talking about the coalition. I'm not criticising him btw, it just felt like his heart wasn't in it when he was trying to justify it. Interesting. Where I will have a go at him however is when he slagged Labour by saying they 'weren't the party I thought they were' which is the pot calling the kettle black really...

[Park Life 71]

Something smells in the State of Denmark.

[Renton 22007]

Anyone watch Question Time last night? Thought it was quite interesting and that Simon Hughes was't really that convinced himself when talking about the coalition. I'm not criticising him btw, it just felt like his heart wasn't in it when he was trying to justify it. Interesting. Where I will have a go at him however is when he slagged Labour by saying they 'weren't the party I thought they were' which is the pot calling the kettle black really...

 

Aye, I saw it. I thought Hughes (who reminds me of Uncle Bryn from Gavin and Stacey for some reason) got the metaphorical shit kicked out of him by that lad from the New Statesman (Mehdi Hasan?), was quite amusing. Even Melanie Phillips made some decent points, including the changing of the vote of no confidence threshold.

 

Politics has never been more interesting. Labour can now just sit back in opposition and witness the inevitable fall out, from their own point of view, they are going to come out of this best. Hasan also made the point that the next election will be one on one between Labour and the Conservatives with the Liberals decimated, which I also agree with. He pointed out this is what the history books show as well.

[NJS 4411]

Anyone watch Question Time last night? Thought it was quite interesting and that Simon Hughes was't really that convinced himself when talking about the coalition. I'm not criticising him btw, it just felt like his heart wasn't in it when he was trying to justify it. Interesting. Where I will have a go at him however is when he slagged Labour by saying they 'weren't the party I thought they were' which is the pot calling the kettle black really...

 

I think liberals will be torn between actually having power (or the illusion of it imo) and unease at dealing with the Tories. I was going to say it might depend whether they are old school like Hughes or new generation but there's an article by Shirley Williams (traitorous bitch) in the Guardian where she seems enthusiastic.

[Renton 22007]

I seriously think of a lot of Liberals are completed deluded and are in denial as to what has happened.

[Holden McGroin 6785]

Just out of interes, what are ConDems doing with inheritance tax?

[NJS 4411]

Just out of interes, what are ConDems doing with inheritance tax?

 

They've postponed the Tories 1m raise until the Libs 10k tax threshold is achieved (I'd guess 2 or 3 years)

[Andrew 4872]

Just out of interes, what are ConDems doing with inheritance tax?

 

They've postponed the Tories 1m raise until the Libs 10k tax threshold is achieved (I'd guess 2 or 3 years)

 

that'd be ok, theyll be out by then

[Renton 22007]

Just out of interes, what are ConDems doing with inheritance tax?

 

They've postponed the Tories 1m raise until the Libs 10k tax threshold is achieved (I'd guess 2 or 3 years)

 

Nice though it is, how is the Liberals tax cut going to be paid for in a major recession?

[Happy Face 29]

Just out of interes, what are ConDems doing with inheritance tax?

 

They've postponed the Tories 1m raise until the Libs 10k tax threshold is achieved (I'd guess 2 or 3 years)

 

Didn't they say that would be in effect by late 2011?

[ChezGiven 0]

Election jokes

 

 

"This is the worst Kraftwerk gig ever"

[ewerk 31221]

Just out of interes, what are ConDems doing with inheritance tax?

 

They've postponed the Tories 1m raise until the Libs 10k tax threshold is achieved (I'd guess 2 or 3 years)

 

Didn't they say that would be in effect by late 2011?

 

To take effect for the 2011/2012 tax year I thought?

[Craig 6700]

With regards to the change in legislation on how an election is called, I think he's right to remove the right of the Prime Minister to call the election at any time as it gave too much power to the sitting government - able to call snapshot elections early when the polls and situation suited them if they please.

 

Whether the figure of 55% no-confidence is fair or not is open for debate but considering they put 66% no-confidence laws in place in Scotland, it's a bit rich coming from Labour.

 

As I see it, the rules suggest that a small number of Conservative MPs would need to vote against the government for an election to be triggered. In the event of a majority government, this wouldn't be any diffferent if it remained 50%+1 - you'd still need a small number to turn against their own party.

 

Forget your political persuasion for a moment and see it from the point of view of a country that is likely to be governed by coalitions in the future. The country requires a stable government, not one that is going to be handed a no-confidence vote every 5 minutes. That is true whether the largest party is Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or whoever...

[Renton 22007]

With regards to the change in legislation on how an election is called, I think he's right to remove the right of the Prime Minister to call the election at any time as it gave too much power to the sitting government - able to call snapshot elections early when the polls and situation suited them if they please.

 

Whether the figure of 55% no-confidence is fair or not is open for debate but considering they put 66% no-confidence laws in place in Scotland, it's a bit rich coming from Labour.

 

As I see it, the rules suggest that a small number of Conservative MPs would need to vote against the government for an election to be triggered. In the event of a majority government, this wouldn't be any diffferent if it remained 50%+1 - you'd still need a small number to turn against their own party.

 

Forget your political persuasion for a moment and see it from the point of view of a country that is likely to be governed by coalitions in the future. The country requires a stable government, not one that is going to be handed a no-confidence vote every 5 minutes. That is true whether the largest party is Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or whoever...

 

Horse plop and contradictory argument there. On the one hand you're saying that it doesn't make much difference, and on the other hand you're saying we will have a vote of no confidence every 5 minutes without it. Hardly inspires confidence in the coalition does it?

 

What other systems have is irrelevant, tell me, where do you think the tories plucked the figure of 55% from? 50%+1 makes perfect sense but this means now the tories can rule unopposed no matter what happens - handy eh? Even some tories are cringing over this and its's frankly highly disturbing if it's a sign of things to come.

 

The Liberals campaigned on a ticket of electoral fairness and in one fell swoop they have undone hundreds of years of unwritten parliamentary constitution to virtually guarantee them and their new best friends the tories an unchallengeable government for the next half decade! Honestly, it's hilarious listening to people try and defend this, most of all so-called Liberals.

[NJS 4411]

It's actually taken me till reading Renton's post to realise what they've done (feeling dull this week) - I just hadn't realised that the 47% they have on their own means only a rebellion can cause an election - what a bunch of twats.

[Craig 6700]

I don't see how I'm contradicting myself. What I'm saying is we're in the situation where the largest party has formed a government and we're at a point whereby all parties unanimously agreed that we needed a stable government.

 

To have kept it at 50%+1 would have worked against that common aim of stability. I firmly believe that to topple the largest party, you need at least some of their members against them and under a majority government, you'd certainly have to have their party turning against them as in 1979 with Callaghan's administration.

 

What I do think should have happened is that rather a set figure, I think it should have been a variable one calculated by as the percentage of MPs who are not members of the largest party plus one.

 

As for saying the Scottish system is irrelevant, I don't think you can make that comment. Labour supported the introduction of the 66% no-confidence system because it suited and protected them. And IMO I think they were totally right to support it and push for it. It's massively ironic that they find issue with the fact the Tories are pushing the idea for the whole of the UK.

 

As for unchallengable government for the next half decade, I don't agree with that either. If Labour win as many seats in 5 years time as they did 5 years ago, they'll be in power. And there'll be nothing the Tories can do about it.

[Craig 6700]

It's actually taken me till reading Renton's post to realise what they've done (feeling dull this week) - I just hadn't realised that the 47% they have on their own means only a rebellion can cause an election - what a bunch of twats.

 

Which has been the case in all the elections that have resulted in a majority government...

[NJS 4411]

It's actually taken me till reading Renton's post to realise what they've done (feeling dull this week) - I just hadn't realised that the 47% they have on their own means only a rebellion can cause an election - what a bunch of twats.

 

Which has been the case in all the elections that have resulted in a majority government...

 

Yes but in this brave new world of constant coalitions that everyone seems to want, the Liberals have effective given up their magic bullet - if they completely fall out with the Tories, we're still stuck with them.

 

In fact if I was Cameron I'd wait until the day after this law is passed and sack all the liberals and tell them to fuck off and run as a "minority" government.

 

(Edit: they can then just use the "stability/national interest" argument to try and get their bills through.

Edited May 14, 2010 by NJS

[Craig 6700]

That's the thing though NJS. Some, including yourself, expect the coalition to definitely collapse. The Lib Dems actually believe it will work for the entire term.

 

And tbh, they have to believe that because the minute they don't will be the minute it does all start to go south.

[Craig 6700]

In fact if I was Cameron I'd wait until the day after this law is passed and sack all the liberals and tell them to fuck off and run as a "minority" government.

 

How could that possibly benefit him at all? Particualarly if in 5 years time, the Tories are again the largest party but again without a majority.

 

Can't see the Lib Dems siding with him again if it follows your suggestion.

[NJS 4411]

That's the thing though NJS. Some, including yourself, expect the coalition to definitely collapse. The Lib Dems actually believe it will work for the entire term.

 

And tbh, they have to believe that because the minute they don't will be the minute it does all start to go south.

 

 

If they are so confident it will work in any case, why have they agreed to a forced position that means it has to?

[Renton 22007]

I don't see how I'm contradicting myself. What I'm saying is we're in the situation where the largest party has formed a government and we're at a point whereby all parties unanimously agreed that we needed a stable government.

 

To have kept it at 50%+1 would have worked against that common aim of stability. I firmly believe that to topple the largest party, you need at least some of their members against them and under a majority government, you'd certainly have to have their party turning against them as in 1979 with Callaghan's administration.

 

What I do think should have happened is that rather a set figure, I think it should have been a variable one calculated by as the percentage of MPs who are not members of the largest party plus one.

 

As for saying the Scottish system is irrelevant, I don't think you can make that comment. Labour supported the introduction of the 66% no-confidence system because it suited and protected them. And IMO I think they were totally right to support it and push for it. It's massively ironic that they find issue with the fact the Tories are pushing the idea for the whole of the UK.

 

As for unchallengable government for the next half decade, I don't agree with that either. If Labour win as many seats in 5 years time as they did 5 years ago, they'll be in power. And there'll be nothing the Tories can do about it.

 

Callaghan's government was toppled by literally one (the +1) vote, wasn't it? So had this rule been in place it would have survived and perhaps history would have been different. You can't just chop and change centuries old constitution because it suits you Craig. Well, actually, apparently you can, and it stinks to Hell. Had Labour done this, I can only imagine the outcry from the press and opposition.