Support NeoGAF

[brain_stew]

But as you can see, there's a party that clearly lost...etc

Yeah, all of them.

 

[Jex]

Also, career politician? If Milliband is a career politician then what in the fuck does that make David Cameron?

He's just a normal guy, right?

Yeah, all of them.

I was just quoting the wise words of Boulton :lol

 

[brain_stew]

Playing Jenga with the UK Government isn't recommended.

Especially when Alec Salmond is involved! :lol

None of the other smaller parties would dare rock the boat, but Salmond? If anyone has the balls to bring down a UK government, then he does.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

This is all turning into a bit of a farce isn't it! Not sure I'd vote for Lib Dem again if they sided with Conservatives, despite what they 'might' have to offer. How you could side with a political party that are for all intensive purposes the polar opposite of you, is beyond me.

 

[Raydeen]

Protip: The last Tory prmie minister ran office as an "unelected PM" for several years as well. Its a complete stupid BS point that means nothing, and only catches steam when the media make a big deal out of it. David Cameron's position is hardly rock solid atm either. We've never elected a PM and never will, the Queen is our head of state and will continue to be so.

Also, career politician? If Milliband is a career politician then what in the fuck does that make David Cameron?

Yeah but at least John Major handed over a stable economy when they lost (that any political watcher will tell you was the real reason for the 'boom years' of the 90's that Labour like to take credit for and totally different circumstances (Thatcher forced out by her Poll tax disaster...hardly a 'protip'. At least on some TV interviews I've caught glimmers of real concern on policies and where Britian is heading from Cameron...which I've never got with Millband's half-grin.

Altough ultimately, for the Conservatives, ruling this term out could be an advantage - they won't have to make the cuts that are going to make Labour and now the Lib-Dems pretty fucking unpopular. An incredible Cameron long-game strategy? Probably not. But whoever wins, we lose!

 

[Jex]

Oh god I hadn't watched the Campell/Boulton thing in full before. Boulton is trying so hard not to rip his skin off an reveal that and howl with demonic laughter. He can barely keep an impish grin of his face.

At least on some TV interviews I've caught glimmers of real concern on policies and where Britain is heading from Cameron...

I didn't realise that one could glimpse anything in such a being. Suddenly he's against election reform, now he'll do a deal on it. Sometimes he supports the claims of same-sex couples, and then he'll form connections with extremist politicians in Europe and has voted that same-sex couples should never be allowed to adopt children.

 

[firehawk12]

This is all turning into a bit of a farce isn't it! Not sure I'd vote for Lib Dem again if they sided with Conservatives, despite what they 'might' have to offer. How you could side with a political party that are for all intensive purposes the polar opposite of you, is beyond me.

Because this would be the only chance Clegg has to push any kind of agenda?

 

[Burai]

I thought Hague did a decent job of explaining the perils of a Lib dem choice of Labour - basically having two unelected Labour prime ministers in a row will be just too much of a bitter pill for the country to swallow. I certainly wouldn't want it to be Millband either, seems like another career politician to me like Blair.

Hague can fuck off. We have a hung parliament. Anyone who takes office now will be unelected. This isn't about taking turns.

 

[Salazar]

Hague can fuck off. We have a hung parliament. Anyone who takes office now will be unelected. This isn't about taking turns.

But some would be less elected than others.

 

[jamieson87]

I have a funny feeling the libs will side with the Tories today.

 

[Jex]

I have a funny feeling the libs will side with the Tories today.

They'd be crazy not to.

 

[phisheep]

"We have, on one hand, the question of stability and on the other hand, the programme of what is best for the country," says Lord Ashdown, former Lib Dem leader. He suggests that having a party "that is rabidly anti-European" in power - i.e. the Tories - is not in those best interests. He says a "rainbow coalition" with all the nationalist parties involved wouldn't work, but claims a minority Lib-Lab coalition would be stable.

Whether you agree with him or not, there's a heck of a danger here of politicians getting confused between 'national interest' and 'policies I support'. They aren't the same thing at all.

You could reasonably argue that strong, stable government with a decent programme for deficit and debt reduction is in the national interest right now.

It's harder to reasonably claim that either a pro-European or an anti-European stance is so clearly in the national interest - something that in a democracy the voters should have some say in. It's a choice rather than a clear case of national interest.

This is a slippery slope and only a couple of steps away from saying, without reference to the electorate, that party X is clearly in the national interest and so should always be the government.

EDIT: Also - while I can see (even if I don't support) a case for a 'progressive alliance' I can see no case at all for a MINORITY one when a majority government including the leading party is so readily available.

 

[firehawk12]

There's also the fact that Labour will be busy getting and establishing a leader, so there's no way that they'd be willing to go to an election any time soon. At the very least, the Conservatives would get a year or two even if they don't forge a coalition with the LibDems.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

Because this would be the only chance Clegg has to push any kind of agenda?

Shouldn't come at the cost of putting the Conservatives in charge, who will just align it in a way that anything they agree to give the Lib Dems will be moot. Though, I don't think anyone is going to come out of this popular.

 

[Jex]

Whether you agree with him or not, there's a heck of a danger here of politicians getting confused between 'national interest' and 'policies I support'. They aren't the same thing at all.

It's harder to reasonably claim that either a pro-European or an anti-European stance is so clearly in the national interest - something that in a democracy the voters should have some say in. It's a choice rather than a clear case of national interest.

Now you're conflating. Party policy is party policy, and there are plenty of people who argue that an anti-European policy isn't in the national interest.

While a particular stance on Europe may be more complicated to understand then a stance on, say, the deficit, it doesn't make that stance any less important. I know many people who voted against the Conservatives because they seemed to have an anti-European stance.

Just because you have a democracy doesn't mean the voters have a direct say over all, or even a lot, of what the party in power does. They have their say when they vote for their representatives and that's pretty much the end of it.

 

[firehawk12]

Shouldn't come at the cost of putting the Conservatives in charge, who will just align it in a way that anything they agree to give the Lib Dems will be moot. Though, I don't think anyone is going to come out of this popular.

Chances are the Conservatives will end up taking power anyway, regardless of whether a deal with the Lib Dems happen or not (I just don't see a Labour-Lib Dem government happening). Their bargaining chip is worth the most now because of all the uncertainty. The longer the Conservatives are able to govern and establish themselves, the less they'll need support from any party.

This changes whenever Labour is ready to gear up for another election, but I don't see them bouncing back after Brown's incompetence and general disarray any time soon. I also have to imagine that Labour insiders are in disarray and there are people clamoring to take up the now vacant leadership position (Brown supporters must have egg on their face at the moment anyway).

 

[Dambrosi]

Fascinating account of how today's mental events unfolded...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...outflanked-as-he-prepared-to-enter-No-10.html

You can almost taste the bitter tears. They're delicious

And the Tories in this thread are getting funnier and more desperate by the reply. "Unelected PMs"? Guess what, hotshot - by that standard, they're ALL unelected. lrn2/constitution.

"The arithmetic doesn't add up"? Since Sinn Fein don't take their seats in Parliament, that's four seats you don't need to count, and even if they did, they'd never support the Tories anyway (or anyone else, come to think of it). So with the SDLP, who take the Labour whip, the Alliance MP who votes with the LDs, the socialist Plaid Cymru and Caroline Lucas, that's a working majority, with no need for the SNP. How well it would work is up for debate, but I don't see it collapsing like the aforementioned Jenga tower if only for the sole reason that all these parties hate the Tories more than each other. A Rainbow Coalition would be fine, don't sweat it. As for Paddy's "Lab/Lib minority" suggestion, though...come on, Paddy, that's bullshit, you know better than that.

"A Con-Lib alliance is the reasonable, pragmatic choice?" Ha! Like they agree on anything, either ideology- or policy-wise! Don't forget, Cameron only offered a referendum on AV, which his own MPs would be free (and perfectly willing) to campaign against, along with all their bumchums in the Murdoch press. No word on cabinet seats or anything else. Meanwhile, Labour have offered to enact AV as actual legislation (presumably before the next election), and also a referendum on full STV. If I were Clegg, I know which offer my party membership would put impossible pressure on me to take.

Also, do you really think that the party membership is in any mood to deal with the Tories when Tory papers like the Daily Mail and Express started character assassinating Clegg again the moment they thought he was looking in Labour's direction? Especially since they'd had to deal with more than a week's worth of that after the first TV Debate four short weeks ago? It'll be The Sun wot lost it!

Besides all of that, the deal-breaker - if the Lib-Dems help the Tories into power, only for the coalition to collapse after a few months and allow the Tories to get a majority at the ensuing election, nobody will ever vote Lib-Dem again, and Clegg and company know it.

Spoiler

Can you tell how drunk I am? I'm very drunk! ...I love you neoGAF.

 

[industrian]

Especially when Alec Salmond is involved! :lol

None of the other smaller parties would dare rock the boat, but Salmond? If anyone has the balls to bring down a UK government, then he does.

If the SNP are included in a coalition government and it collapses because of them then there'd not be an "I CALLED IT!" image large enough for me to post.

 

[Jex]

This changes whenever Labour is ready to gear up for another election, but I don't see them bouncing back after Brown's incompetence and general disarray any time soon. I also have to imagine that Labour insiders are in disarray and there are people clamoring to take up the now vacant leadership position (Brown supporters must have egg on their face at the moment anyway).

I wouldn't be so sure, Brown is actually being a tactical genius. Apparently he decided that he would resign during the election, so people were already prepared for this,

 

[Souldriver]

Shouldn't come at the cost of putting the Conservatives in charge, who will just align it in a way that anything they agree to give the Lib Dems will be moot. Though, I don't think anyone is going to come out of this popular.

That's only because the British people don't understand how coalitions work. The Lib Dems going with the Conservatives is not selling out, but -if it turns out to be that way- the most reasable or doable government form.

Yes, the Lib Dems would have to drop quite a bit of their manifesto, and so would the Conservatives have to do. But that way at least the Lib Dems get to have any say in policy, which is still a change from before. So I don't really see why you wouldn't vote again for the Lib Dems. Your vote 5 days ago (in the assumption you voted for them) has made it possible for the Lib Dems to influence policy.

 

[firehawk12]

I wouldn't be so sure, Brown is actually being a tactical genius. Apparently he decided that he would resign during the election, so people were already prepared for this,

If only he resigned before taking power from Blair?
I suppose calling that woman a bigot on a hot mike was all according to keikaku? :lol

That's only because the British people don't understand how coalitions work. The Lib Dems going with the Conservatives is not selling out, but -if it turns out to be that way- the most reasable or doable government form.

Yes, the Lib Dems would have to drop quite a bit of their manifesto, and so would the Conservatives have to do. But that way at least the Lib Dems get to have any say in policy, which is still a change from before. So I don't really see why you wouldn't vote again for the Lib Dems. Your vote 5 days ago (in the assumption you voted for them) has made it possible for the Lib Dems to influence policy.

Yeah, I just don't think people understand the unprecedented opportunity the Lib Dems have at the moment. God knows it's not in Labour's interest to work with them because they share a similar voter base. Any victories Labour gives to the Lib Dems means more fodder to be used against them in the next election.

 

[phisheep]

Now you're conflating. Party policy is party policy, and there are plenty of people who argue that an anti-European policy isn't in the national interest.

While a particular stance on Europe may be more complicated to understand then a stance on, say, the deficit, it doesn't make that stance any less important. I know many people who voted against the Conservatives because they seemed to have an anti-European stance.

Just because you have a democracy doesn't mean the voters have a direct say over all, or even a lot, of what the party in power does. They have their say when they vote for their representatives and that's pretty much the end of it.

Not trying to conflate anything - just to try and understand where the dividing line comes.

And of course whatever a party's stance on, say, Europe is important.

What I'm trying to nudge around is to what extent politicians should use 'national interest' as opposed to party policy a banner for policy negotiations that do not involve the public.

Typically (in this country) we see these sort of arguments at times of war or other national crisis - where there's a common enemy out there and *everyone* recognises the enemy. Under those circumstances it seems reasonable to subsume party policies to the common national interest - but the word 'common' is important there in two respects, that the threat is common and that it is commonly recognised (in the sense of 'almost universally').

At the moment, I'd suggest that the national debt and budget deficit falls either in or close to that category. There may be disagreement on the tactics to adopt, but the objective is clear.

I'd contrast that with the stance on Europe, where the actual objectives differ between parties and so there isn't a clear consensus on what the national interest actually is.

That's probably still vague - I'm trying to feel my way around it.

 

[brain_stew]

I wouldn't be so sure, Brown is actually being a tactical genius. Apparently he decided that he would resign during the election, so people were already prepared for this,

Dude must be a kick ass poker player.

 

[Chinner]

decision day is today apparently...

 

[painey]

one is a genius

the other's insane

 

[Chinner]

Labour and Lib Dems negotiating now. I get the feeling it's going to be another eventful day...

Not really helpful though, got a exam tomorrow and should really be revising:lol .

 

[phisheep]

Might as well post this so that I can be shot down in flames afterwards!

Prediction:

Cameron as PM, formal 4-year coalition Conservative/Libdem, referendum on AV within two years, two or three cabinet posts to Libdems, policy concessions on education and tax.

Clegg will say in his speech that:

It has always been his desire to act in the national interest and the primary problem we have is the debt and deficit which requires a strong and stable government.

Although there are clear policy differences between them, the Con/Libdem coalition is the only way of acheiving that and, though he recognises that many will regret there is no alliance with Labour that Labour cannot guarantee that the coalition would be stable enough for long enough to sustain the work that needs to be done on the economy.

He will directly address that he must respect the will of the electorate and that it is right that the Conservatives should be able to seek to form a government.

He will directly address the press reaction to the negotiations, saying that he has negotiated in good faith throughout and that the reason he approached Labour was that the deal then on offer from the Tories seemed to not offer enough stability in the medium term and that a full coalition was necessary to derisk the partnership - and that this would clearly require policy concessions to be acceptable to both sides. He will express regret that this position could not have been reached through their first negotiations but hopes that people will appreciate why he did what he did.

He will directly address policy differences with Labour on civil rights, deficit reduction, and may criticise the Labour approach to negotiation.

He will give credit to Gordon Brown for his offer to stand down and the dignified way he has conducted himself.

He will not mention Mandelson at all.

 

[Acheteedo]

Man, people are so divided on this (no surprise I guess), but it's amazing how divided supporters within each party are, with everyone stating their opinion as the 'obvious choice', they can't all be the right choice.
e.g: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/05/who_should_the_lib_dems_work_w.html

Incredibly difficult decision for Clegg. I think it's got to be Lib-Lab with electoral reform and general election next year, or Lib-Con, hope for electoral reform but either way the coalition could last for several years, or, let the tories struggle with a minority government, forcing another general election within a couple of years.

 

[Salazar]

He will not mention Mandelson at all.

No, he will try, but the name will sear his throat—eat holes through the tissue—on the way up, and a bright green gas will be all that escapes as he gently falls to the floor.

 

[PJV3]

How is Boulton doing today?.Hoping for some more fun before this ends.

 

[Chinner]

Insightful article by Jeremy Clarkson...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...eremy-Clarkson-on-the-Gordon-Brown-years.html

HE made a mess of things when he was in control and now, by resigning, and opening the door for an unworkable Lib-Lab pact, it seems he's going to leave us with an even bigger one.

thats true....

The fact is this: other countries are now well and truly out of recession. Some never went there in the first place.

thats interesting...

We did though and we're still bumping along the bottom now with massive debts thanks to Brown

damn brown!

Gord riddance to the Scottish idiot.

I thought this refreshing article by Clarkson was quite insightful and showed a level of maturity not seen in the left wing media or two faced Clegg.

 

[firehawk12]

"Gord riddance"?

 

[Jex]

I thought this refreshing article by Clarkson was quite insightful and showed a level of maturity not seen in the left wing media or two faced Clegg.

I do like it when people mention the left-wing media - as if the Telegraph, The Sun, The Times, Sky News etc don't exist.

It will be interesting to see how history remembers Brown - I'm sure he'll come off better then many people assume.

 

[UnblessedSoul]

Well they need a scape goat to blame for the recession, Poor Brown I think he handled it pretty well

 

[DSWii60]

Edit: Nevermind.

 

[iapetus]

I'm confused by the coverage - are the Conservatives offering basic AV, the already-recommended AV+, or the choice of either (alongside FPTP) in a referendum?

 

[Chinner]

Basic AV.

 

[industrian]

It will be interesting to see how history remembers Brown - I'm sure he'll come off better then many people assume.

As a Chancellor he was nearly-invincible. If Tony Blair had stepped down sooner then who knows what would happened.

 

[Chinner]

John Cleese explains PR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk&NR=1

god he is so amazing <3

 

[radioheadrule83]

I wish Labour would offer a preferendum... with AV+ and STV as options.

The Tory-press is going to be unbearable if talks break down between the Lib Dems and Conservatives... they're already pissing and shitting the bed just because Clegg is even TALKING to Labour.

 

[defel]

I bet some Tories are almost hoping that the Lib Dems cuddle up with Labour because they know how toxic Labour are at the moment.

 

[Empty]

I bet some Tories are almost hoping that the Lib Dems cuddle up with Labour because they know how toxic Labour are at the moment.

along with mervyn kings reported comments.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I bet some Tories are almost hoping that the Lib Dems cuddle up with Labour because they know how toxic Labour are at the moment.

I think a Lib/Lab government could bring about a Conservative majority next time, not only does a Lib/Lab coalition seem not too popular with the general public (although I could be completely wrong there) they will be the ones to take on the soon to be very unpopular spending cuts. I think the only thing that could stop the Tories walking the next election would be for them to collapse under in fighting after finding themselves in another spell of opposition. Who know though.

 

[iapetus]

Whoever forms the next government is fucked. To get out of the current economic situation is going to require some seriously unpopular moves that are going to be campaigning gold for the opposition next time round.

Unfortunately, this includes the Lib Dems whatever way they decide to go, as they determine who forms the next government.

 

[sohois]

Have there, or will there be any polling on what kind of coalition/government the public might want? As much as people say that the public 'voted' for a hung parliament, they didn't, they voted for who they wanted to win, so i think it would be interesting to see how the public wants to see the current situation worked out.

 

[defel]

“The people have voted for change”, “The people have told Gordon Brown that he has got to go” , “The people are saying that they don’t really trust any one party”, “The people have said that they want Parliament reformed, the tea room in the House of Commons redecorated, new carpeting in the women’s lavatory of the House of Lords and a vegetarian option in the canteen.”

http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/05/09/stalemate-pr-and-pr-ice-cream-bananas-and-fudge/

 

[Chinner]

Interesting differences between the scottish and english editorials of the sun
http://www.dracos.co.uk/scribblings/sun-2010-05-11/

 

[RedShift]

John Cleese explains PR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk&NR=1

god he is so amazing <3

Was just about to post this. Great video. Hopefully we get change now even if we didn't in 1985.

 

[NekoFever]

Whoever forms the next government is fucked. To get out of the current economic situation is going to require some seriously unpopular moves that are going to be campaigning gold for the opposition next time round.

Unfortunately, this includes the Lib Dems whatever way they decide to go, as they determine who forms the next government.

That's why I think a more limited partnership with the Tories that gets a referendum on AV in exchange for getting them through the Queen's Speech and such is the best thing for the Lib Dems. Some people are going to be upset whichever way they go, but I think the backlash against keeping Labour, even given the misunderstandings about unelected leaders and all that, in power will be greater, and as long as it's not a formal coalition they can keep some distance from the unpopular cuts. If you thought the right-wing press had been bad since Gordon Brown was in, it's going to be apocalyptic if the Lib/Lab coalition forms a government.

Interesting differences between the scottish and english editorials of the sun
http://www.dracos.co.uk/scribblings/sun-2010-05-11/

Wow :lol

 

[Acheteedo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/22/andrew-rawnsley-general-election-hung-parliament

For the Liberal Democrats, a hung parliament is usually seen as a dream scenario which would elevate Nick Clegg from also-ran to kingmaker with the power to choose the government with a twitch of his thumb. It would not work out like that. A hung parliament could as easily be a total nightmare for the Lib Dems. Imagine that the Conservatives have the most seats. Even if the Tories were interested in a coalition with the Lib Dems, the Conservatives are implacably opposed to electoral reform, the sine qua non if Mr Clegg were to try to sell a Lib-Con pact to his party. It is most likely that David Cameron would form a minority government, produce a Queen's Speech and a first budget, probably one full of cuts suggested by Vince Cable, and then dare the Lib Dems to defy the will of the electorate and look "irresponsible" by voting it down. This approach to governing without a majority has worked well for Alex Salmond's SNP government in Edinburgh. Cameron would likely try to copy Harold Wilson. He governed for a short period after 1964, when Labour got a very small majority, and after February 1974, when Labour did not have a majority at all, and then went for a second election to seek a stronger position.

What if Labour were the largest party in a hung parliament? This is the mother of all nightmares for the Lib Dems. Their senior MPs are already privately divided about what they would do in that case. Even if Labour had the most seats in the Commons, the Conservatives are almost certain to have won more votes in the country. The Tories would cry – and their argument would get huge amplification in much of the media – that Labour had lost its "moral authority" to govern. Having spent the election campaign saying that the country cannot stand another five years of Gordon Brown, how could Nick Clegg turn round and announce that the Lib Dems were going to give him life support to stay at Number 10? One very senior Lib Dem tells me he fears that they would be "crucified".

There is one intriguing solution to this dilemma, which is being discussed very quietly among some senior politicians. A blood sacrifice would be required to acknowledge that Labour had been rejected as a majority government in order to facilitate a coalition with the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems could even make this a condition of striking the bargain. The deal would be that Gordon Brown resigns and is replaced with a new Labour prime minister with a commitment to electoral reform. Hello and welcome to Number 10, Alan Johnson or David Miliband.

This was from last November, he was right on the mark.