|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Well, the FTSE's down by over 2% but part of that is a revaluation after yesterday's big gain. Sterling marginally down against the dollar but up against the Euro. So my fears of yesterday evening have not really materialised - yet. Maybe tomorrow's going to be the nasty day...
Meanwhile, Cons are talking again to the Lib Dems...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In a system in which all the parties can be laid out along a single political spectrum
Such a system is not what we have in the UK, though. We have one centre-right party and two centre-left ones.
If the Lib Dem-Labour stitch-up finally happens, it will prove once and for all that under any system that fails to give one party a majority of seats, a vote for Lib Dem is no more or less than a vote for Labour. It follows that in any system that is designed to dramatically reduce the number of overall majorities, the LibLab Party will be virtually unimpeachable. Far from making each vote more relevant, it would ensure that the makeup of the resulting government is known before any votes are even cast. All the electorate would be able to decide would be the exact shade of orange they'd use as a backdrop.
It is only to be hoped that once the electorate sees this truth, a lot of yellow (and even, dare I hope, red) votes will turn blue.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
An amusing view of the aftermath of the UK election by Mark Steyn, a form Canadian, now an American citizen can be found here.
(At least I found it amusing!)
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the Lib Dem-Labour stitch-up finally happens, it will prove once and for all that under any system that fails to give one party a majority of seats, a vote for Lib Dem is no more or less than a vote for Labour. It follows that in any system that is designed to dramatically reduce the number of overall majorities, the LibLab Party will be virtually unimpeachable. Far from making each vote more relevant, it would ensure that the makeup of the resulting government is known before any votes are even cast. All the electorate would be able to decide would be the exact shade of orange they'd use as a backdrop.
I'm not sure it's as straightforward as that. There are a lot on the left-hand side of British politics who feel that their views are not well represented by either the Lib Dems or Labour. I think that a significant proportion of them would seriously consider voting for smaller parties if there was a reasonable chance of them getting elected. I also suspect that a number of right-wing Tories would go towards UKIP or the Christian Party, so slightly fragmenting the right.
If this happens, coalitions must be the order of the day, and it will come down to whether the right-leaning parties are stronger than the left-leaning ones. I'm not sure it's obvious which grouping would be stronger.
And on a more general point, if 55-60% of the electorate always want a centre-left government of one flavour or another, why shouldn't they have it?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
And on a more general point, if 55-60% of the electorate always want a centre-left government of one flavour or another, why shouldn't they have it?
You mean apart from the fact that the other 40-45% of us might as well not bother voting, since our voices will never be heard in government?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
I'm afraid that's democracy. If you don't like it, go out and try to win the political argument.
(And it's not like you don't have most of the sensationalist media on your side to help you do that already.)
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
If you don't mind disenfranchising nearly half the electorate, we may as well leave the electoral system as it is because there's nothing wrong with it. It would just be different people who get disenfranchised.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the Lib Dem-Labour stitch-up finally happens, it will prove once and for all that under any system that fails to give one party a majority of seats, a vote for Lib Dem is no more or less than a vote for Labour.
By that logic, should a LibCon coallition emerge, it would prove that a Lib Dem vote was a vote for the Tories. I'm not sure that either statement is true, since things are more nuanced than that. A number of people voted LibDem in an attempt to keep the Tories out (either in their individual constituency or nationally) but, equally, there was a proportion who were voting Lib Dem in order to boot out Labour. A vote for a LibDem candidate is precisely that: every person who casts it has their own set of intentions.
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You mean apart from the fact that the other 40-45% of us might as well not bother voting, since our voices will never be heard in government?
Indeed - a system that made right-wing people feel that your votes weren't worthwhile would be unfair.
On the other hand, doesn't the 'first past the post' system make some people feel that their votes aren't worthwhile? From 1979 - 1997, I wonder how many left-wing people in Scotland or Wales, or in safe seats (held by any party) in England felt that 'they may as well not bother voting' under FPTP. The information here suggests that a lot of seats are 'safe' for incumbents under our current system.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Just to provide a bit more evidence: the Electoral Reform Society has argued that 382 (of 650) seats in the Westminster Parliament are 'super safe' because they "will not change hands even with a landslide on any conceivable scale". From the total voting population of 45,420,808, 26,665,604 voters live in safe seats - that's 59% of the electorate (same source).
[ 11. May 2010, 15:05: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
Well, the BBC are suggesting that a LibCon it is.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
William Hill's stopped taking bets, Labour have said that they're done with negotiations and people have been seen packing bags into cars behind Number 10.
We might just have a new government.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Such a system is not what we have in the UK, though. We have one centre-right party and two centre-left ones.
But they are very different types of "left", and I don't think they are necessarily all that compatible.
Labour left is bureaucratic, statist, centralising, and rooted in a mass industrialist view of society. It's ideological base comes from the socialist tradition, even if most of them are not full-blown socialists today. Its stereotypical voter might not wear a cloth cap and have a whippet any more, but is still likely to be a C2/D/E, or a low-ish paid public sector professional who works with C2/D/E clients.
LibDem left is less collectivist, more localist, and more comfortable with rural, suburban, post-industrial society. Its ideological base is somewhere between John Stuart Mill and Tom Paine. Its stereotypical typical voter is more likely to be on the A/B/C1 scale than the C2/D/E scale, rides a bike and wears sandals.
I can see how these two parties can work together in certain policy areas, but I cannot imagine them forming a "united left" because the social, cultural and ideological gap is just too wide.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I have just read that the Conservative Way Forward group has rejected the idea of a LibDem/Tory coalition.
See this for a suitably chilling shape of things to come.
And of course the hardliners of the LibDem party aren't saying just the same kinds of things about their leadership negotiating with the Tories?
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Sorry to keep bugging you with questions from an American, but what is a "C2/D/E" and what is an "A/B/C1?"
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Sleepwalker, I imagine it was the "spirit of 1979" banner. It's certainly what's going to give me nightmares tonight.
Thurible
[ 11. May 2010, 15:29: Message edited by: Thurible ]
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sorry to keep bugging you with questions from an American, but what is a "C2/D/E" and what is an "A/B/C1?"
They're references to social classes (how very British of us). Does this help?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sorry to keep bugging you with questions from an American, but what is a "C2/D/E" and what is an "A/B/C1?"
They're categories of social class. See here for explanations.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Yes, very helpful. Thanks. At least you Brits admit you have social class, we lie to ourselves that we don't have them!
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
William Hill's stopped taking bets, Labour have said that they're done with negotiations and people have been seen packing bags into cars behind Number 10.
We might just have a new government.
Apparently those bags belonged to a policeman!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
And the BBC live election broadcast is now showing us the weather, FFS!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Such a system is not what we have in the UK, though. We have one centre-right party and two centre-left ones.
It's not as simple as that. The LibDems seem to attract those from both sides of the divide. On my local council, quite a few of the LibDem councillors are former Conservatives who have crossed the floor and in the event of a hung council, are more likely to team up with the Conservatives than with Labour, as has indeed happened in the past.
Clegg is in an impossible position. Whichever way le leans on this one, he's going to upset about half of his party members.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I have just read that the Conservative Way Forward group has rejected the idea of a LibDem/Tory coalition.
See this for a suitably chilling shape of things to come.
And of course the hardliners of the LibDem party aren't saying just the same kinds of things about their leadership negotiating with the Tories?
The hardliners of the LibDem party have a lot to learn. They can be devious (watch them at local level!) but they cause few nightmares, probably not since the days of Jeremy Thorpe.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
See this for a suitably chilling shape of things to come.
In what way?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If the LibDems go with the Tories, are all the LibDems beholden to vote in a block, or will the Tory-hating lefties in the LD be able to vote against Tory/LD legislation?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the LibDems go with the Tories, are all the LibDems beholden to vote in a block, or will the Tory-hating lefties in the LD be able to vote against Tory/LD legislation?
The backbench (non-government ministers) in the Lib Dem parliamentary ranks can vote either way on every vote. As time goes on, the rebellion is likely to grow, until it results in the next General Election. Another reason to give as many Lib Dem MPs junior jobs in the government as possible. They have to resign their ministerial posts if they rebel against the whips.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
The party whip is strong in the House of Commons, so MPs are supposed to tow the Party line.
Of course, it makes a big difference whether or not a formal coalition is set up, or just a confidence and supply agreement. If the latter, then it is quite legitimate for the Lib Dems as a whole to go against the (minority) Tory government on any non-confidence vote. If it is a formal coalition, then they would expect to vote with the government all the time.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
See this for a suitably chilling shape of things to come.
In what way?
I think you know exactly what I mean!
In Downing Street there is talk of resignation but elsewhere Austin Mitchell MP and junior minister David Lammy have spoken out against the Labour leadership's failure to consult their Labour MP's. Worse still Lord Mandelson has been seen smiling. That's as frightening as my earlier link to the Conservative Way Forward group.
I reckon another election next year, following a very hard time for Mr Cameron with economic woes, a war he can't win, no majority and having to give cabinet posts not merely to Lib Dems but also to Conservatives on the right, who would not have been in the cabinet had there been a clear majority.
It'll be no fun for We British either. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
What is all this about fixed term parliaments? Is this the end of PMs calling elections when they think they can best win? Does this mean the end of no confidence votes? Would the PM continue to serve for the fixed term even if he/she lost the confidence of the House?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the LibDems go with the Tories, are all the LibDems beholden to vote in a block, or will the Tory-hating lefties in the LD be able to vote against Tory/LD legislation?
Sort of..
People are allowed to vote as they please.
However the parties are allowed to treat traitors as they please.
Obedience organised by the Whips, people who bully the voters into line. A code system (like 'red' alerts) exists.
A vote against a One Line whip, means 'not in my name'.
A vote or abstention against a Three Line whip means they'll be newly independent, and out of any committees. If there are enough who will risk that then the coalition won't be viable.
In practice then if the Lib Dem's expect to get Tory votes for their essential policies then they won't be able to have their members getting away with voting against Tory demands (and likewise for the Tories).
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
I think it just means the PM can't choose a time to suit themselves. Confidence votes would still trigger an election, I assume.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
What is all this about fixed term parliaments? Is this the end of PMs calling elections when they think they can best win? Does this mean the end of no confidence votes? Would the PM continue to serve for the fixed term even if he/she lost the confidence of the House?
First of all, introducing fixed term Parliaments would not mean the end of no-confidence votes. It does not mean that the PM serves for a fixed term, but that the House of Commons would serve for a fixed term. The House of Commons would be able to pass a vote of no-confidence in the Government (in practice, this would be rare, unless a coalition split or the Government lost the confidence of its own backbenchers). The result of a no-confidence vote would be the formation of a new Government without a general election.
Secondly, "fixed term" does not mean fixed term. Norway is the only European parliamentary democracy to have absolutely fixed terms. Usually, "fixed terms" means "the Prime Minister cannot dissolve Parliament at will". There might be restrictions requiring a two-thirds majority of Parliament to consent to an early dissolution (as in Scotland), or a rule allowing an early dissolution only in certain circumstances, such as if a new PM cannot be chosen within a reasonable time (as in Germany).
An example of how this works in practice can been seen from the case of Ireland in 1994. [Ireland does not have fixed terms, but the President (largely a symbolic figurehead) does have the right to refuse a dissolution to a government which has lost the confidence of Parliament]. When Labour withdrew support from Reynold's government the President, Mary Robinson, indicated that she would use her power to refuse a dissolution if asked. Reynolds therefore resigned without asking for a dissolution, and the Dail appointed John Bruton as Prime Minister without an intervening general election.
A more clear-cut example occurred in Germany in 1982, when the withdrawal of the FDP from the Social Democrat -led coalition, owing to a disagreement over economic policy, led to the removal of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (Social Democrat) and the appointment of Helmut Kohl (Christian Democrat).
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
I think it just means the PM can't choose a time to suit themselves. Confidence votes would still trigger an election, I assume.
A no-confidence vote would not necessarily trigger an election. It would probably do so only if a new PM cannot be appointed within a reasonable time.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
So what will Brown say to the Queen? Something like:
PM: "Sorry to interrupt [insert name of television show on at the moment], but it seems that I have lost an election so I must resign."
To which she'll say something like:
HM: "Yes, We thought you might be dropping in. So that's that then. Thank you. No need to linger. Good night."
Or is there a more formal way of doing it?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
That's pretty much it. Though Brown would say "I recommend that Your Majesty summon David Cameron." HM always acts on the advice of her ministers, even in this case. It's a formality and everyone knows the script, but things have to be done formally.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Or is there a more formal way of doing it?
I'm sure Vernon Bogdanor will be along in a minute to explain all the fine details. He is, after all, the "constitutional expert". ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the LibDems go with the Tories, are all the LibDems beholden to vote in a block, or will the Tory-hating lefties in the LD be able to vote against Tory/LD legislation?
The backbench (non-government ministers) in the Lib Dem parliamentary ranks can vote either way on every vote. As time goes on, the rebellion is likely to grow, until it results in the next General Election. Another reason to give as many Lib Dem MPs junior jobs in the government as possible. They have to resign their ministerial posts if they rebel against the whips.
I doubt, however, if Clegg would offer to formally coalesce with the Conservatives if he thought that his backbenchers would routinely vote against the government.
Meanwhile Labour have pulled out of negotiations with the Lib Dems. This is hardly surprising as a majority of three would mean that the most piffling back bench revolt could see off an electoral reform bill. The good news is that this appears to have led to the extortion of a referendum on AV from Cameron. As the next general election could be crushing for Labour this is probably good news for them. And it's good news for the Lib Dems, of course.
The last person to get that sort of impact out of a resignation was Sir Geoffrey Howe.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The reality of politics is that it is ALWAYS about coalition building - except that usually this process occurs, in private, within a single party. ... All we are seeing here is a slightly more visible exercise in the same process ...
Good point.
That's one of the most sensible thing anyone's said yet on this thread.
And its another reason why minority governments and/pr electoral reform are good ideas - they keep more of the political process out in the open
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That's pretty much it. Though Brown would say "I recommend that Your Majesty summon David Cameron." HM always acts on the advice of her ministers, even in this case. It's a formality and everyone knows the script, but things have to be done formally.
Obviously I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek for what is a very serious matter. I did not know that the outgoing PM would advise the Queen to summon the next PM. Interesting.
So Brown will probably take less than five minutes but the Queen will probably spend some time with Cameron and his wife as a curtesy even though it is late in the evening?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So my fears of yesterday evening have not really materialised - yet. Maybe tomorrow's going to be the nasty day...
Why should it? There is a government in place, and they intend to raise taxes and cut public spending, just like the banks told them to.
There might be another government tomorrow, or next week, or next month - but every likely government is going to raise taxes and cut public spending just like the banks tell them to.
They might raise put the cuts in different places - Tories likely to cut inheritance taxes for their rich friends and realations and put up VAT which hits the rest of us worse, Liberals intend to cut property taxes (such as the Council Tax) for their middle-aged middle-class suburban supporters who love to see rising house prices, Labour put up income taxes (under the not-very-hard-to-see-through guise of National Insurance, which is just another category of Income Tax these days) which spreads the load more widely but hits the slightly better off worse than the slightly worse off - but they will all out up taxes.
This isn't Greece. The politicians know who pulls the strings.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benny Diction 2
Shipmate
# 14159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm surprised at how upset and fearful I feel right now, but I do fear for the economy, my business and my livelihood...
Oh for pity's sake.
Yeah, well, thanks a bundle for belittling how I, my family,my employees and their families are feeling right now...
I'm not belittling how you feel. Just remember that there are potentially tens of thousands of public servants who are equally nervous. Funnily enough I'm married to one - a senior nurse of 30 years standing who is probably not regarded as "front line" but child welfare never is "front line" for Tories is it?
I'm certainly afraid that a Tory / LibDem government will push the country back into recession. then we're all screwed - even business owning Tory lovers.
--------------------
Benny Diction
"The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it - a bit like Christians in the Church of England." Tony Benn
Posts: 859 | From: Home of the magic roundabout | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
There may be a separation of an hour or two so that Brown and Cameron aren't at the Palace at the same time, and Buck House won't call Cameron until Brown is through with the Queen, even though Cameron is waiting by the phone (or cell phone, as the case may be).
Them HM would summon Cameron and Mrs. Cameron to wait upon her, though as I understand it HM insists on formality and protocol dictates that HM is the one deferred to. So tea, a short discussion, probably an explanation in this case of how he intends to get a working majority, though the Queen has only had to deal with two other minority parliaments before personally in the UK.
I'm quite sure that the Court staff are throughly briefed and Canadian precedents are front and centre, as we've had 11 minorities in the last 100 years and we use exactly the same system the British do.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
So much for "Vote Clegg, get Brown".
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
I wonder if the Queen liked Mr. Brown? I wonder if she likes Mr. Cameron? I know it doesn't matter, but still, interesting.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
At least one Queen liked Mr Brown. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Gordon's resigned and gone to the palace.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Cross-posted with the world.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Gordon has now left the Palace.
It'll probably be a while before we get the next developments, now that the various sides have to convene and talk it out.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If something similar happened in the UK, there would be a delicious irony in the Liberal Democrats being destroyed by the thing that they desired for so long.
I have no doubt that PR would end the Liberals. They would find a home in a soft left labour or a new one nation Tory like party. I think that UKIP might do very well on a PR system since England is generally Euro sceptic but no one thinks UKIP will get in. On a PR system they would do.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. What you have described is essentially what happened to the Liberals under FPTP in the early-to-mid twentieth century. The nature of PR is that smaller parties are less likely to get absorbed by larger ones.
What, I think, destroyed Social Credit is that they let themselves get outflanked on the right and left by other smaller parties with a more obvious vision to 'sell'. In Britain, the most obvious threat to the Lib Dems are the Greens, and they might also be at risk if a right-wing libertarian party were to come into existance.
If Britain were to adopt PR, and its politics follow in a similar pattern to New Zealand's, I expect that parties large and small would marshal themselves into two blocs ie: (right) Tories, UKIP, BNP (left) Labour, Green, SNP, PC. In short, one major party on each side of the spectrum plus smaller parties each with a distinctive, almost single-issue political viewpoint: anti-Europe and racism on the right, respectively, and environmentalism and nationalism respectively on the left.
I'm really not sure where that leaves the Lib Dems. As you say, they might have to jump left or right. Given the size of their vote, depth of organisation and long history of representation, they could well still become as popular a party as Conservative or Labour, but I doubt it.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
