Heartland

Posted: **07 May 2010, 23:24**

Google returned nowt for "scarwemongering" am I missing summat?

Posted: **08 May 2010, 01:13**

Maisey wrote:I imagine it pained Clegg to show any favour to the Conservative, the party which is ideologically most separated from..

Not really. Clegg is basically a Tory (indeed, was one at uni). Did anyone see his bit in the Spectator about his admiration for Thatcher? I imagine he's personally quite happy. Most of his party, however, won't be.

Posted: **08 May 2010, 01:22**

I f**king HATE THE TORIES

Posted: **08 May 2010, 03:53**

James Blast wrote:Google returned nowt for "scarwemongering" am I missing summat?

I'll take it that question is rhetorical..?

Posted: **08 May 2010, 14:59**

stufarq wrote: It does in Europe. And Scotland. And Wales. And Northern Ireland. The only reason it's causing chaos is because we're not used to one.

Possibly you're right. But how many of them use FPTP? I can't speak for Europe, but pretty sure the devolved parliaments use PR, giving you a broader spectrum of possible coalition partners. Bit difficult to form coalitions when there's only three parties with a significant number of seats!

Posted: **08 May 2010, 16:44**

the_inescapable_truth wrote:Not really. Clegg is basically a Tory (indeed, was one at uni). Did anyone see his bit in the Spectator about his admiration for Thatcher?

I might have bloody guessed. Doesn't he also like to witter on about the wonders of the free market as well? I was previously a Liberal voter, but I took an instant dislike to the man from the moment I saw him - admittedly based on little apart from my gut feeling that he was cut from the same fresh-faced, media-friendly, policy-lite cloth as Cameron, and a completely groundless assumption that he was far from the left of the party. Seems my instincts were pretty accurate!

Posted: **08 May 2010, 16:53**

for the love of christ will you people get a grip.

1. a couple of days of negotiation is hardly "chaos" no matter what some sections of the media might say.
2. the lid dems are about as ideologically distinct from the tories as they are from noo labour. which is to say that they are miles apart on some issues and more or less aligned on others. ideologically there's no reason why agreement with the tories is any more or less likely than agreement with labour.
3. scotland? progressive? modern? the envy of the world? bankrupt within ten years if they no longer had westminster to blame for all their woes.
4. constitutionally-speaking, since what passes for our constitution is naught more than a bundle of precedents and vague notions, clegg is free to open talks with whoever he damn well pleases. the scottish cyclops can barricade himself into no 10 if he likes but come 18th may he'll be out on his ear. and good f**king riddance.
5. any of you who voted lib dem "to keep the tories out" - i hope you've learnt your lesson now. next time try voting for something.

in conclusion, welcome to the bright green slopes of a libertarian future free of id cards and the unchecked creep of the state into more and more areas of our lives.

Posted: **08 May 2010, 16:57**

Aye, nice to see you too.

Posted: **08 May 2010, 16:59**

does he still qualify as a 'Young Man'?

'Bad Tempered' aye but young, nup

Posted: **08 May 2010, 17:16**

RicheyJames wrote: Scotland? progressive? modern? the envy of the world? bankrupt within ten years if they no longer had westminster to blame for all their woes.

I'd give it a bit longer than that when we're not helping pay for a Trident Replacement, the House of Lords, the Scottish Office, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lizzie, Phil the Greek and the rest of the royal layabouts.

The possibility of my country spending the next five years as a testing ground for every unpopular Tory policy on the grounds they've got nothing to lose (well almost nothing apart from David Mundell's seat) does not fill me with joy.

Posted: **08 May 2010, 17:30**

Erudite wrote:I'd give it a bit longer than that when we're not helping pay for a Trident Replacement, the House of Lords, the Scottish Office, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lizzie, Phil the Greek and the rest of the royal layabouts.

hmmm... 2007/08 figures show scottish expenditure to be Â£53.3bn against revenues of Â£45.1bn. even if we let you hang on to the Â£7bn or so in off-shore revenue you're still not quite breaking even. and remember, that was in the good times. i can't find more recent figures but i'd imagine gordon's recession has had a fairly brutal effect on the revenue side of that equation.

The possibility of my country spending the next five years as a testing ground for every unpopular Tory policy on the grounds they've got nothing to loose (well almost nothing apart from David Mundell's seat) does not fill me with joy.

but what are scots for if not a more humane replacement for animal experimentation?

Posted: **08 May 2010, 18:47**

someone needs to twist your arm

Posted: **08 May 2010, 18:59**

RicheyJames wrote:
but what are scots for if not a more humane replacement for animal experimentation?

I'm no' biting.

Posted: **08 May 2010, 23:25**

RicheyJames wrote: 4. constitutionally-speaking, since what passes for our constitution is naught more than a bundle of precedents and vague notions, clegg is free to open talks with whoever he damn well pleases.

Er, no. While we may not have a formal constitution all written in one place, we have laws and statutes, which are the definition of a constitution. And those include laws on who gets the first opportunity to form a government. Legally, the existing government remains in office because no-one else has been voted in. Therefore, they get the first chance to prove that they can command the absolute majority of the House of Commons. If they fail to do so or choose to step aside, then the party that won either the simple majority or (if that was the existing government) the next highest number of seats gets a chance. Clegg is talking to Cameron because, in what may have been some clever manoeuvring on Clegg's part, Brown informally waived his right to first shout.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 10:47**

stufarq wrote:
RicheyJames wrote: Clegg is talking to Cameron because, in what may have been some clever manoeuvring on Clegg's part, Brown informally waived his right to first shout.
Brown informally did no such thing. It was Clegg who said he'd talk to whoever got the most votes, effectively dismissing Gordon Brown's right - constitutionally speaking - to get first shot at forming government.

Clegg of course knew the party with the most votes would be the Tories, but by saying that he'd work with whoever got the votes, he avoided the wrath of his party and his voters. A man of principle indeed. My arse.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 11:36**

stufarq wrote:Er, no. While we may not have a formal constitution all written in one place, we have laws and statutes, which are the definition of a constitution. And those include laws on who gets the first opportunity to form a government.

in a word: bollocks. there is no law on the british statute books that says any such thing. the appointment of the prime minister is entirely a matter of royal prerogative. it is entirely within the purview of the queen to appoint and dismiss prime ministers and constitutionally there is nothing to prevent her dismiss brown this morning and inviting cameron to form a government.

Legally, the existing government remains in office because no-one else has been voted in.

wrong again. legally the existing government remains in office because the prime minister has neither resigned nor been dismissed by the sovereign. on thursday nobody in this country was voting for a government, prime minister or even a party. we voted for an individual to represent our views in parliament.

Therefore, they get the first chance to prove that they can command the absolute majority of the House of Commons. If they fail to do so or choose to step aside, then the party that won either the simple majority or (if that was the existing government) the next highest number of seats gets a chance.

again, cobblers. in accordance with precedent, brown can theoretically continue to govern up to the point where he fails to survive a vote of no confidence (a vote on the queen's speech being considered a de facto confidence vote) and which point the precedent is that he would offer his resignation to the queen. note that there is no legal imperative for a prime minister who cannot command the confidence of the commons to resign but were this to happen it would still be within the powers of the sovereign (with the advice of the privy council) to dismiss said prime minister.

Clegg is talking to Cameron because, in what may have been some clever manoeuvring on Clegg's part, Brown informally waived his right to first shout.

clegg is talking to cameron because clegg wants to talk to cameron (and cameron wants to talk to clegg). brown had no "right" to open talks first and so was in no place to waive any such "right".

i'd suggest reading up on the works of norman st john stevas, vernon bogdanor and, of course, walter bagehot before next class. dismissed.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 13:30**

I'm curious that the only discussion regarding Proportional Representation is about how this election's voting figures would have been converted into seats under a PR system.

I think the far more interesting discussion will be what will happen to the large political parties in the face of PR, particularly the Tories.

Big monolithic parties such as the Tories & Labour are only necessary in order to game the First Past The Post electoral system - only big parties can "win" an election under this system (where winning is defined as being elected to more than half the parliamentary seats).

The Conservative party often describes itself as a "broad church". In reality this means that the party is frequently divided (its MPs are the most "rebellious" against the party line) into various factions with noticeably different policies (already they have started to bicker following Cameron's failure to win a majority). They only stay in the same party because this is the only way for them to achieve power (monolithic parties being a requirement of the FPTP electoral system).

If/when PR is introduced to the UK, I'd put money on the Tory party splitting in some way to more genuinely reflect the economic/social beliefs of the members. This could take the form of:

a 50/50 split that completely changes the current party political landscape,
a smaller offshoot party (reminiscent of the SDP split from Labour),
a mass emigration to another existing smaller party (probably UKIP)

(my money's actually on a combination of (2) and (3))

Theoretically the same could happen to Labour, but I think they've already headed this off back in the 80s and early 90s, with the ejection of the far-left Militant and the departure of the centrist SDP. It's a repetition of this "pruning" of the Labour party that I expect to see in the Tories if PR is introduced.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 17:43**

lazarus corporation wrote:I'm curious that the only discussion regarding Proportional Representation is about how this election's voting figures would have been converted into seats under a PR system.

I think the far more interesting discussion will be what will happen to the large political parties in the face of PR, particularly the Tories.

Big monolithic parties such as the Tories & Labour are only necessary in order to game the First Past The Post electoral system - only big parties can "win" an election under this system (where winning is defined as being elected to more than half the parliamentary seats).

The Conservative party often describes itself as a "broad church". In reality this means that the party is frequently divided (its MPs are the most "rebellious" against the party line) into various factions with noticeably different policies (already they have started to bicker following Cameron's failure to win a majority). They only stay in the same party because this is the only way for them to achieve power (monolithic parties being a requirement of the FPTP electoral system).

If/when PR is introduced to the UK, I'd put money on the Tory party splitting in some way to more genuinely reflect the economic/social beliefs of the members. This could take the form of:

a 50/50 split that completely changes the current party political landscape,

a smaller offshoot party (reminiscent of the SDP split from Labour),

a mass emigration to another existing smaller party (probably UKIP)

(my money's actually on a combination of (2) and (3))

Theoretically the same could happen to Labour, but I think they've already headed this off back in the 80s and early 90s, with the ejection of the far-left Militant and the departure of the centrist SDP. It's a repetition of this "pruning" of the Labour party that I expect to see in the Tories if PR is introduced.

I think #3 is already happening. I didn't vote for UKIP because of their policies paticularly, more because they were fairly close to what I believe and NOT headed by Cameron and Osbourne. Those two are remarkably unpopular. I think the arguement within the Tory party is along the lines of turning themselves into a blue version of Labour and p.o'ing their grassroots members with fiddled candidate lists hasn't even won them the election against someone as useless as Brown, so what was the point? If Howard managed the popular vote before the recession and Gordon's economic reputation lying in tatters as an actual Tory party, couldn't they have won this under their, as it were, true colours?
But couldn't you argue that under PR people might desert Labour and the Lib-Dems for the BNP and Greens, respectively?

Posted: **09 May 2010, 18:08**

Sorry, I think I was unclear: I'm talking about MPs leaving the Tories, not the party's supporters (although the latter would be an inevitable side effect of the former).

As such, No, I don't think there's any chance Labour MPs would defect to the BNP.

I also think the LibDem's haven't reached the critical mass required for them to start splitting.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 18:38**

lazarus corporation wrote:Sorry, I think I was unclear: I'm talking about MPs leaving the Tories, not the party's supporters (although the latter would be an inevitable side effect of the former).

As such, No, I don't think there's any chance Labour MPs would defect to the BNP.

I also think the LibDem's haven't reached the critical mass required for them to start splitting.

Ahh, gotcha. I was talking about the members/supporters.
Thing against that is that the average Tory M.P values his party being in government a lot more than he does his principles. Remember Major threatening the general election they knew they'd lose if he couldn't get Maastricht through?Rather than vote the way their consciences and supporters wanted, they voted it through. In the same way they're allowing Cameron and Osbourne to turn the party on it's head just so they can warm their backsides on the opposite benches and ignoring their members protests about it
If Cameron can't swing things with Clegg, I suspect we'll start seeing and hearing a lot more of David Davis in the Tory press. Hell, if they get desperate enough, what price Boris Johnson?

Posted: **09 May 2010, 18:59**

i think you've a valid point there mr corporatuion though i wouldn't be so sure that labour won't be rent asunder just as effectively as the conservatives. let's not forget that this is a party that contains both jon cruddas, peter mandelson and dennis skinner and to suggest that they display less ideological differences of opinion than, say, cameron, ken clarke and philip davies is a little naive surely.

Posted: **09 May 2010, 23:47**

Nice to see our resident psephologist surface at last.

RicheyJames wrote: 2. the lid dems

Rusty fingers or joke I'm not in on?

emilystrange wrote:cricket

Now there's an idea...

Posted: **10 May 2010, 17:54**

latest....brown steps down as labour leader. libdems having talks with both sides.

Posted: **10 May 2010, 18:11**

emilystrange wrote:latest....brown steps down as labour leader. libdems having talks with both sides.

Had to be done if they are to have any hope of forming a coalition with the Lib Dems.

On some level I actually feel a wee bit sorry for Brown - although not nearly enough to want to see him continue as PM.

Posted: **10 May 2010, 18:37**

I heart Golden Brown, I'm off down to London to give him a wee cuddle!

Heartland

The Election Thread