The British Politics Thread - The Bear and Badger

acemuzzy

Hasn't ed promised not to?

n0face

No formal coalition, supported minority government is still open.

monkey

Labour and SNP will almost definitely have the numbers for confidence and supply. I heard the other day though that it was something like 1922 when it wasn't the largest party that formed the govt (although Brown tried it with the Lib Dems in 2010).

It's not seen as democratically legitimate I think. Although it seems a bit stupid. If you can control parliament in a FPTP system, how is that not legitimate? I can see both sides of it though. If eg the Tories and UKIP locked out a larger Labour Party, I'd think it was a bit of a cheat.

The Tories will be moaning like fuck about it and I reckon they'll end up with a handful more seats than Labour. As per up thread, they're better at getting their message into the heads of the electorate.

Edit - It was 1923 actually.

mistercrayon

The thing to remember is that Party

= government. It's been the way for ages but a government needs to run the country. It's easy when you have a majority+whips but it's perfectly doable to have mixtures (like germany, us to an extent). If the government can pass law then it could have one person from each party.

It's worth bearing in mind that in 1992 the tories were on for a dead cert loss compared to labour. Historians will remember that Labour didn't win an election till 1997. The phenomena was that there was somthing called a "shy tory". In polls the'y say "I don't know" because it was embarassing (for them) to say tory. So it's difficult to be sure who is going to be in the lead in the true poll.

I think you can make an arguement on both sides to be "shy" about declaring which you prefer at this time. Ed's been portrayed as a geek and Cameron is a tory and brings the shy tory baggage

regmcfly

"Well, he tried to kill me, but man I'm aching for that upper class tax cut."

Diluted Dante

monkey wrote:

It's not seen as democratically legitimate I think. Although it seems a bit stupid. If you can control parliament in a FPTP system, how is that not legitimate?

Yeah, it's shite. If you can demonstrate either a larger bloc of seats, or number of votes, it's legitimate.

LarryDavid

monkey wrote:

As per up thread, they're better at getting their message into the heads of the electorate. Edit - It was 1923 actually.

On this point, a significant part of the UK media are right-leaning, and therefore more likely to shamelessly drum the Tories chosen message home ... and to launch into the 'Red Ed', "some of us remember the 1970's, the three day week, dead rotting in the streets, rubbish piled up..." narrative whenever any vaguely left-wing idea or policy is raised.

In lots of areas of the media it does seem to be that there's only a narrow spectrum of centre-to-centre-right opinions which can be expressed without a handful of Littlejohn-esque opinion pieces coming out deriding 'the hopelessly naive left', 'bleeding heart liberals' etc.

I do think the internet and social media (in some cases, not Facebook) have helped in this regard, and five years of pitiless austerity have made more people engaged in this election than the last.

monkey

Lib Dems have already said they'll talk to the largest party first. If that's the Tories, being the largest party and the incumbent, they could have a minority govt in place, and dare Labour and the SNP to "plunge the country into chaos blah blah blah" by blocking them in Parliament.

But part of me suspects crayons onto something with his "shy Labour" voters.

Diluted Dante

If the difference is, as suggested, only a couple of seats, I think that Labor could could make a stong argument if they can demonstrate more seats combined than Lib Con, and especially if they can do more seats and more votes.

They just have to push the idea that a larger percentage of the country voted for the parties involved in their arrangement than the other, or others, depending on what combinations are mooted.

The idea of one party getting more seats having a divine right to form a Government is silly to me. Especially if it's negligible. If you can form a majority, or at least the largest bloc and had more votes, why can't you form the government?

equinox_code

...imagining the Mail's reaction....

Diluted Dante

Red Ed and child molesting SNP give the country cancer?

beano

Really loving what some people are up to...though it does nothing....

You're so Tory Supermarket

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/24/money-supermarket-spoof_n_6741760.html

Diluted Dante

Green Party manifesto, mini and full versions, both horribly unsearchable right now.

equinox_code

I am actually amazed by the Tories and how they try to spin their policies. How does Cameron conjure the nerve to speak of 'the greatest sunshine' and 'offering you security at every stage of your life' while announcing a manifesto that pledges to increase house prices further, scrap the human rights act, see deeper cuts in public services than anyone living can remember, and virtually repeal your right to strike over pay and conditions.

Diluted Dante

Grapefruits.

acemuzzy

equinox_code wrote:

I am actually amazed by the Tories and how they try to spin their policies. How does Cameron conjure the nerve to speak of 'the greatest sunshine' and 'offering you security at every stage of your life' while announcing a manifesto that pledges to increase house prices further, scrap the human rights act, see deeper cuts in public services than anyone living can remember, and virtually repeal your right to strike over pay and conditions.

I wouldn't mind the bullshit nearly so much if it didn't ein votes by people falling for it, courtesy of, yet again, the helpful media. Grrrr.

GooberTheHat

I managed to leave Claire Perry, the Conservative Devizes mp speechless this evening. I was a a political hustings (stupid fucking name) and she was going on about how we still need to tighten up on EU immigration because the UK was a soft touch, benefits, NHS, blah blah blah.

So I asked her a question. "Since 2001 it is estimated that immigrants from the EU have contributed £20Bn more in tax than they have claimed in benefits in that time, so what is the problem?"

Que open mouthed silence.

Diluted Dante

GooberTheHat wrote:

I managed to leave Claire Perry, the Conservative Devizes mp speechless this evening. I was a a political hustings (stupid fucking name) and she was going on about how we still need to tighten up on EU immigration because the UK was a soft touch, benefits, NHS, blah blah blah. So I asked her a question. "Since 2001 it is estimated that immigrants from the EU have contributed £20Bn more in tax than they have claimed in benefits in that time, so what is the problem?" Que open mouthed silence.

GooberTheHat

The green party candidate seemed to like it and agreed with my quoted figures, then the lib dem guy started waffling on about something to do with immigration but managing to actually say nothing.

Yossarian

monkey wrote:

Lib Dems have already said they'll talk to the largest party first. If that's the Tories, being the largest party and the incumbent, they could have a minority govt in place.

Based on current projections, they won't have nearly enough seats between them.

equinox_code wrote:

I am actually amazed by the Tories and how they try to spin their policies. How does Cameron conjure the nerve to speak of 'the greatest sunshine' and 'offering you security at every stage of your life' while announcing a manifesto that pledges to increase house prices further, scrap the human rights act, see deeper cuts in public services than anyone living can remember, and virtually repeal your right to strike over pay and conditions.

Because he's every bit as much of a cunt as Osborne.

Gremill

GooberTheHat wrote:

The green party candidate seemed to like it and agreed with my quoted figures, then the lib dem guy started waffling on about something to do with immigration but managing to actually say nothing.

That sums up the problem really - many politicians these days don't actually seem to know anything outside of what they've been briefed to say that hour. You'd think she'd at least be able to counter your argument with some well thought out pre-prepared bullshit.

Good work!

Funkstain

It's this Right To Govern bullshit that probably annoys me the most.

How can you be so ignorant, so lazy, as to attend a hustings with your constituents, and not be aware of well-known, publicised, GOVERNMENT-OFFICIAL statistics like Goobs'?

I mean there really are reasonable arguments to curb migration - none of them I agree with, but they could at least be wheeled out, with even the most base preparation.

The arrogance of these candidates (and I'm hardly surprised that in Devizes, the Tory candidate can be so complacent) is abhorrent.

Brooks

If you meet a Tory, slash their fucking tyres. Confirm their worst fears.

WorKid

Impressive pitch by Clegg and the Lib Dems I thought.

Yossarian

The only way I can imagine it being impressive is if Clegg delivered it while hooked up to a polygraph machine rigged to drop him into an active volcano if he lied.

WorKid

That would have been impressive.

Diluted Dante

Have the Tories and Lib Dems been made aware that the SNP have a new leader?

WorKid

Isn't the point Salmond might be an MP, Sturgeon won't be? So her powers are limited (in the sense of actually forming a Westminster government )?

GooberTheHat

Funkstain wrote:

I mean there really are reasonable arguments to curb migration - none of them I agree with, but they could at least be wheeled out, with even the most base preparation.

The arrogance of these candidates (and I'm hardly surprised that in Devizes, the Tory candidate can be so complacent) is abhorrent.

I was expecting some sort of comeback or counter argument but there was nothing. Unfortunately the Tories will always win that seat so they could put a monkey up to stand there and still win.

Elmlea

I finally gave up on the system today. From what I recall, the LDs formed a coalition with the Tories, and as part of that, had to give up their pledge on tuition fees; because it was a part of the Tory demands for forming a coalition?

Now, we have the Tories saying the public shouldn't trust the LDs because they lied over tuition fees and changed their minds... when they only did that because the Tories, who are now using this to score points, made them...?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories