gcubed said:as an outsider, are there any links or anyone willing to throw up an explanation on whats going on with this? How is it currently and what is AV+ and STV... all i heard on the news here was that the Tories are pushing through reform that could cost them seats in the next election
Dare I say some of them may only have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pounds.iapetus said:All the ministers in this coalition are multimillionaires, right?
Mr. Sam said:The ministers have agreed to take a 5% paycut. How selfless of these multimillionaires to take a slight paycut.
Mr. Sam said:Impressive PR though.
This is a really weird populist way of looking at things. I suppose with your logic everything balances out because all those Labour Ministers have taken pay cuts because they're no longer ministers?phisheep said:We're going to get a lot of misuse of the word 'cut' over the next year or so. This is one of them.
None of these people were ministers before - so none of them got a ministerial salary. Now they are all getting a ministerial salary. So every one of them is getting a pay RISE.
They just aren't getting as big a rise as they would otherwise be entitled to. It isn't even true to say they're getting a lower rise than they expected, because it's been Tory policy all along and none of the LibDems expected to even be ministers.
That's not a cut. It's a rise.
How much do Cabinet Ministers get paid?
Cabinet ministers have been entitled to a salary of £145,492 (including MP's salary of £65,738) from 1 April 2010. Current ministers have agreed not to take the pay rise for 2010-11, either in their ministerial or parliamentary salaries.
Chinner said:This is a really weird populist way of looking at things.
You mean, Arizona is.Chinner said:Looking at the Arizona thread, America is basically what would happen to the UK if UKIP or BNP got into power.
Maybe, maybe. In their case I think it was kinda the opposite, a large portion of the country simply wasn't ready for a black president and now their racist tendencies have come to the fore in a desperate and ugly power struggle. Arizona just seems to be a lot crazier than the rest.Chinner said:Looking at the Arizona thread, America is basically what would happen to the UK if UKIP or BNP got into power.
David Cameron - speech to the department of buisness today said:I see this as a big economic department with a huge task in front of it and I want you all to work together to deliver that. In doing so you have got an incredibly talented team of ministers. Vince Cable is an absolute star in terms of economic policy and economic thinking. He's demonstrated that over the last few years.
Chinner said:Truth hurts. To actually think New Labour are 'progressives' is a utter laugh. The whole point of the New Labour experiment is to make it more right wing and business orientated. Personally, I'd prefer if they just stopped and brought back the Old Labour or the New Old Labour or whatever.
Mr. Sam said:Dare I say some of them may only have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pounds.
scotcheggz said:I saw an interview, unfortunately I can't remember who it was with, where one of the big dogs in Labour party said that the new labour "experiment" was dead and they would be going back to their roots with the unions and focusing on the working man again.
.
I'm hoping he does as little as possible. Considering he's got David Laws on one side and Vince Cable on the other, he should just let them do all the work. We'll be much better off if he does.scotcheggz said:As for this new Liberal Conservative government, I'm skeptical, but I'm open to being proved wrong. The only thing I'm really doubtful of is that fucking monkey Giddeon.
iapetus said:Dare I say you may not have the slightest fucking clue and be making ridiculous assumptions as a result and maybe shouldn't have been making statements like that without knowing how many of them actually are multimillionaires?
Mr. Sam said:Alright, alright - I was merely using hyperbole to demonstrate how a 5% paycut was little more than fluffy PR.
Edit: http://noto55.com/
So, apparently there are plans in the works that for a No Confidence vote to go through it would need 55% in the Commons. Huh. Interesting.
PJV3 said:After all the talk of strong, stable government to then say you could carry on like that is very odd.
Mr. Sam said:So, apparently there are plans in the works that for a No Confidence vote to go through it would need 55% in the Commons. Huh. Interesting.
Empty said:lots of good information here about what these systems are.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5
we currently use first past the post. the lib dems propose having STV, labour have in the past considered AV+, but at the last election proposed AV, and though the tories don't want any change to the voting system, the lib-con deal is going forwards with a referendum on AV. it has been speculated that AV will lead to the tories losing out, because lib dem voters will be more likely to support labour as their second choice.
PJV3 said:On the news a Tory MP was slagging off the Liberals and giving the coalition 2 years because Liberals don't like being unpopular.I wonder if Dave is going to have a word.
Mr. Sam said:That's what they have party whips for. This'll be some fresh meat for Patrick McLoughlin.
If the BNP got in, the resulting brain drain alone would cripple the country. I don't think I'd be alone in being on the first flight out of here.SmokyDave said:I honestly can't imagine the UK with UKIP or The BNP in power. We wouldn't last 3 months.
Chinner said:I know we all love the election thread, it is a huge achievement in cross party coalition in achievement over 11k posts with little to no back deal posts. But today there is a new style of new thread posts, and we must be sure to embrace this.
tldr: post in this thread you fuckwits.
I am having problems whipping the back benchers of the election thread into place.Subliminal said:Gordon Brown.jpg.
Chinner said:I am having problems whipping the back benchers of the election thread into place.
Chinner said:I am having problems whipping the back benchers of the election thread into place.
Apparently it was the Lib Dems who pressed for fixed term elections and a new method of dissolution to stop the Tories from calling a snap election when the polls look good. It also has something to do with the Civil Service's advice not to get the Queen involved in the timing of parliamentary dissolution, i.e. overruling the fixed term date.Mr. Sam said:Alright, alright - I was merely using hyperbole to demonstrate how a 5% paycut was little more than fluffy PR.
Edit: http://noto55.com/
So, apparently there are plans in the works that for a No Confidence vote to go through it would need 55% in the Commons. Huh. Interesting.
I believe it was a combination of pragmatism and Labour negotiators merely 'going through the motions.'DEO3 said:As an American I don't really understand why the Liberal Dems made a coalition with the Tories, don't their views fall much more in line with Labor?
iapetus said:All the ministers in this coalition are multimillionaires, right?
JonnyBrad said:Mathew Paris made a good point on DP earlier about the 55% thing. If someone really wants to force down the government they can surely put in a motion to repeal the 55% no confidence law. Thus only needing 50.01% to repeal it then use a 50.1% no confidence vote.
And it doesn't seem to me (legal hat on) that it is something you could legislate for either, because all Parliamentary votes are carried by a bare majority. So if a confidence vote doesn't reach 55% to take out the PM, all they have to do is have a bare majority vote to change the rule back to what is was before and then do the confidence vote again.
Mr. Sam said:If that's the case, wouldn't pushing the law through in the first place be an excercise in futility?
PJV3 said:The MP was funny in an Alan Clark way " unlike them we are capable of holding our noses to work together" Liberals stink.
The title of this thread should have totally been "ConDemned to Cameruin".Facism said:I preferred ConDem. Fits like a glove.