View Full Version : Tomorrow
Deleted account DD
05-05-2010, 10:14
Well, decision day tomorrow and enforced career change I hope for some of those twats in westminster.
Without getting into heavy debate and no slagging each other off!!!! who are you going to vote for ?
I'm undecided, I just know it wont be Labour at any cost :augie
iandouglas
05-05-2010, 11:19
Hi`a Dave .
postal vote already done voted conservative he is a local farmer.
not realy happy about voting any of them in but feel/hope they cannot do any worse.
only time will tell but you can bet there will be some more shite to follow who ever gets in.
rgds.id
lacroupade
05-05-2010, 12:28
anybody but that spotty little w*nker Clegg....:augie
BNP, they will sort the country out, lol:naughty
They have all lost the plot.Immigration is a problem.One lot has a quota system the other points and one wants to cap the total.The problem is not NON EU counries but uncontroled EU immigration to the level of thousands per month.Oh yes says Brown,we can go and work in Poland - luvly,I can't wait ! They should stop EU immigration completely and only allow English speaking,Christian Commonwealth citizens with proven British heritage to return.But no , that is too sensible and may mean offending some idiot in Brussels!:doh
we have a problem, our MP for the last five years is a local family man who has worked so hard for the community and achieved so much for all of us in South Lakeland, but this is a marginal seat only 270 votes in it last time, and a vote for our MP could help give us a hung parliament and we don't want that. It looks as though I will have to vote with my head and not my heart. I will vote, but most of the country wont even bother and then they will spend the next five years complaining. How easy it could be for our government to be taken over by extremest groups. regards bri
They have all lost the plot.Immigration is a problem.One lot has a quota system the other points and one wants to cap the total.The problem is not NON EU counries but uncontroled EU immigration to the level of thousands per month.Oh yes says Brown,we can go and work in Poland - luvly,I can't wait ! They should stop EU immigration completely and only allow English speaking,Christian Commonwealth citizens with proven British heritage to return.But no , that is too sensible and may mean offending some idiot in Brussels!:doh
i'll second that, :thumb2:clap BMP rocks.
i'll second that, :thumb2:clap BMP rocks.
Typical BNP supporter , they had to keep it down to 3 letters and they still cant get it right :lol
lacroupade
05-05-2010, 19:06
<<<refs whistle!!>>>
Don't know if any of you have taken one of the many "vote for policies not parties" questionnaires floating about but I did and it turns everything on its head.....you think you're one thing and you turn out to be another....not to mention highlighting the fact that NONE of them has got it all right....as Wildbri says, its another five years of lost opportunity I guess....
Deleted account DD
05-05-2010, 19:07
Typical BNP supporter , they had to keep it down to 3 letters and they still cant get it right :lol
:jesterbg
No newsnight for you young man :D
lacroupade
05-05-2010, 19:08
Jeremy Paxo - get stuffed I say!!!
Deleted account DD
05-05-2010, 19:08
I didnt realise, not that Id thought about it I suppose, but if its a hung parliament with no clear majority I'm told Brown can refuse to vacate office :eek:
Now that is a worry :augie
lacroupade
05-05-2010, 19:10
I didnt realise, not that Id thought about it I suppose, but if its a hung parliament with no clear majority I'm told Brown can refuse to vacate office :eek:
Now that is a worry :augie
Of course if I was standing, it would be a WELL HUNG parliament....:augie
Of course if I was standing, it would be a WELL HUNG parliament....:augie
i was always told that those who brag about sex dont get it :augie
i was always told that those who brag about sex dont get it :augie
sheila says thats why women cant park cars , because men are always telling them that 4 inches is 10 inches :lol:lol
Oh yes parliament should be BLOODY HUNG for thieving and cheating the tax payers money
F.... them all, not one of them have the balls to tell the EU Bo:@@@ks abou EU migration
paulp
can ANY party really sort this country out within our lifetime? Conservatives will just blame labour, labour will just say nothings wrong, Lib Dems have never had a chance, neither have BNP etc, and can that fresh face really help? I dunno. :(
I am gonna vote liberal , just becuase I want the current conservative MP out , David Heathcote Amory was one of the ones spending my money on a ******* duck house and manure !.
I am gonna vote liberal , just becuase I want the current conservative MP out , David Heathcote Amory was one of the ones spending my money on a ******* duck house and manure !.
hilary myers ( lib dem ) , and steph booth ( step mother of cherie booth ) are standing in my constituency ..... you would have though they could afford a chair to sit on :augie
i know this much, i aint voting labour and i aint voting conservatives, it makes me angry beyond all comprehension when I think about their attitudes towards us and thier cock-handed way of dealing with things. It really IS time for change, this crap has goen on long enough in this country, change takes time and it needs to begin now.
i'm voting for myself.
zippy656
06-05-2010, 07:59
well its now TODAY..
i know just what you mean Clivvy..
they both say a vote for LIB DEM means a vote for the oppesition.. they cant even get that right!! as its a vote FOR LIB DEM!
this is a good read http://www.dontvotelabour.org.uk/
i'm personally just so pig sick of the take-take-take approach of this government, and as I recall, the Conservatives. Not saying i'm voting for Lib Dems, but they certainly seem fresher. Its going to be very interesting to see who wins, I just PRAY to God that its at the very least not Labour.
lacroupade
06-05-2010, 08:24
The number of MPs who aren't in it for themselves can be counted on the fingers of one hand.....:doh
vote monster raving loony party , the only party that admits they are idiots :thumb2 ..... i actually like the idea of a 99p coin :naughty
i actually think some people are voting for different parties purely as a change rather than for the policies :rolleyes:
Deleted account DD
06-05-2010, 09:37
i actually think some people are voting for different parties purely as a change rather than for the policies :rolleyes:
Really ? only joking.
Its called the deference vote (or was all those years ago when I did politics) and has always been around, daft technique really imho.
;)
god help us if that pratt cameron gets in, that bloke is so out of touch regarding the working class it's a joke, all he will do is make the rich richer and stuff the rest of us. :sly
Deleted account DD
06-05-2010, 13:00
Well I reckon Browns administration has been like watching a car crash,
Nigel Farage (UKIP) just had to go one better...............He had a plane crash this morning. He and the pilot are both ok.
First theories are that the banner they were towing blew back into the aircraft controls. Ironically sums them up really :augie
http://www.slapometer.com/
http://www.slapometer.com/
i found it helped with my frustration and choice of candidates :thumb2
ClanWolf
06-05-2010, 18:47
Just voted, Lib Dem on both. Not that I like the f***ers, but Labour are a shambles and the Conservatives would be like rabid dogs.
My politics are very naive, but I do believe the following applies: "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Go and vote. Because the fanatics are.
Deleted account DD
07-05-2010, 10:09
Well we've got the hung Parliament.
One interesting point though. Despite the massive swing away from lab , generally towards Tory, as its a hung Parliament Brown doesnt have to leave Downing St. Skin of teeth and all of that.
So.........
Bearing in mind the massive swing away from him, will he do the decent thing and vacate or will he have one last act of immoral, condescending , dishonest arrogance that has peppered his meddling from beginning (Iraq war & not the steady hands on fiscal matters he was touted as) to end (that very decent lady he labelled as a bigot, first in and last out of recession )?
As he's turned up "for work as normal" in the Prime Ministerial car this morning my moneys with the majority of commentators and he wont be changing the address his barclaycards sent to at the moment at least.
i was saving this untill after the election ..... i still havent had a reply to the e mail i sent the labour party candidate about the episode in tescos :rolleyes:
to find out whos won in your constituency . type your postcode in here..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a85.stm
http://www.slapometer.com/
lacroupade
07-05-2010, 11:58
Well we've got the hung Parliament.
One interesting point though. Despite the massive swing away from lab , generally towards Tory, as its a hung Parliament Brown doesnt have to leave Downing St. Skin of teeth and all of that.
So.........
Bearing in mind the massive swing away from him, will he do the decent thing and vacate or will he have one last act of immoral, condescending , dishonest arrogance that has peppered his meddling from beginning (Iraq war & not the steady hands on fiscal matters he was touted as) to end (that very decent lady he labelled as a bigot, first in and last out of recession )?
As he's turned up "for work as normal" in the Prime Ministerial car this morning my moneys with the majority of commentators and he wont be changing the address his barclaycards sent to at the moment at least.
Seriously pi55ed here. He was never voted in by the public and now he wants to stay on uninvited - the ar*ehole should just feck off now......but Jacqui Smith out, what a result :thumbs:thumbs:thumbs
Deleted account DD
07-05-2010, 12:11
but Jacqui Smith out, what a result :thumbs:thumbs:thumbs
yee hah , bang on, what a fecking superb result
:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap
For the record, I and I reckon approx 150 000 of my colleagues detest that woman. She embodied everything that was bad about new labour politicians even down to stupidity when she won the battle against us but lost the war through her own incompetence. Just cant say it often enough, what a fantastic result :thumb2
Deleted account DD
07-05-2010, 12:21
In fact I'm that pleased
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Got to say it again
yee hah , bang on, what a fecking superb result
:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap :clap:clap
For the record, I and I reckon approx 150 000 of my colleagues detest that woman. She embodied everything that was bad about new labour politicians even down to stupidity when she won the battle against us but lost the war through her own incompetence. Just cant say it often enough, what a fantastic result :thumb2
like most stains, Browns going to be tough to remove. Hes already said hes going to "stand by the country and continue to work hard " blah crappy blah, not quoting here by the way. its obvious where this is going i think, and its trouble.
I voted Lib Dem, cos frankly Labour is a sham, and Brown is a cock (HOW can anyone vote for a man like him? a person who calls his OWN consituants biggots?), Torys, well, need i say more? Lib Dems arent even great, I just felt they had a fresher almost more honest approach, and they seem to be far FAR less childish than Labour And Conservative now. All we are going to see is them two bickering like school children, blaming each other for past presetn and future.
im pig sick of this crap. Its like you vote, a clear winner gets the majority of votes, but that doesnt matter, cos they didnt get a certain percentage, so the existing PM gets to stay? cock.
supertaff
07-05-2010, 12:42
Whoever parks his arse in number 10 , it will be "God help Joe Public",
If that limp-wristed Cameron gets in it will be "Hooray-Henrys Rule, don't do as I do, do as I say"!! ... and if Brown stays it will be " Business as usual at animal farm, form a queue at the pigs trough mates ... the taxpayer will fund it"!! .
They are all talking about cuts in the public sector ... but how many of them have volunteered to give the massive payrise they recently awarded themselves back to the taxpayer? Is any one of them worth the space they take up at Westminister ? ........ NOPE !!!!!!!
lacroupade
07-05-2010, 13:10
and as has been frequently said in the financial press.....whatever government DOES get in is likely to be out of office thereafter for a very long time if it deals with the financial crisis properly, i.e. we have a very hard time coming whoevers in charge.....
and as has been frequently said in the financial press.....whatever government DOES get in is likely to be out of office thereafter for a very long time if it deals with the financial crisis properly, i.e. we have a very hard time coming whoevers in charge.....
indeed mate ... one only has to look at greece and its austerity measures and the response thats created .:rolleyes:
Deleted account DD
07-05-2010, 19:23
Well it looks as though Brown AGAIN is failing to do the decent thing. He's clinging on tho the Downing Street door keys.
What a tosser.
ps pleased to see Charles Clark , another bollox home secretary has been put on the unemployment register too :D
Strange times indeed . Redcar near us a traditional labour stronghold has gone to the Lib Dems. Frank Cook who some may have heard of, formerly a Labour stalwart but fell out with them and stood as an indi in our area was decisively beaten by the BNP candidate :D and there he was relying on his good time "friends" :naughty
Guess its that time again, only another 5 years to go before the pigs get caught with their faces in the trough at our expense and the BS begins again.
The media tell us with certainty, what the politicians mean, instead of allowing us to decide, interpretation being 9 tenths of the law.......
I've watched the process with dread, the people of the uk have been duped and media-led, again. Most of what we see on TV, even the 'live' stuff, is edited in some way. Dumbed down into bite sized convenient lumps which the electorate can swallow, history is written by the victors it's often said!
Just how much nonsense can any of the parties come up with before they are exposed as the self serving, crony loving, selfish toerags that they really are.......................
There are a few good politicians I believe, but someone once said, maybe truthfully,
Politicians never lie, EXCEPT when they open their mouths...............
All animals are equal......................... etc etc etc etc etc etc.........
Totally disillusioned with the whole damned process as you may well have guessed. Another 5 years of rising taxes, falling incomes and increasing immigration and none of the parties in power can do a damned thing.......
What an interesting thread .........
I'm a tad bemused by what seems to be happening now. Nick Clegg seems to have hijacked the constitutional process.
My understanding of what should have happened is that it's down to the outgoing prime minister (Gordon Brown) to decide whether he can form a new government. As Labour are not now the largest party, he would obviously have concluded that it just wasn't possible without the support of the Lib Dems - so, I guess he would have phoned Nick Clegg first thing on Friday AM had he not made that public statement about the Tories having to prove that they could govern in the national interest. Presumably, in line with what he had previously said, Nick Clegg would have refused to support a new labour goverment, so GB would have gone to see the queen, resigned and suggested that the queen invite David Cameron as the leader of the largest party. DC could have been installed in Number 10 by lunchtime.
The country must have a prime minister at all times and government business must continue. Gordon Brown has no option but to sit on his thumbs in Number 10 until the negotiations between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives conclude and it becomes clear whether the Conservatives can form a government.
I can't actually see the Lib Dems (the party and their supporters - not just the parliamentary leadership) giving up their commitment to electoral change so that Nick Clegg can strut around the cabinet office pretending that he wields some real power in the new government. If they did, I reckon that electors would not judge them kindly and would take that into consideration when deciding whether to vote Lib Dem at the next election - which would probably be sooner rather than later.
What do you guys think? Are we going to see a Lib-Con coalition?
Andrew
Deleted account DD
08-05-2010, 12:15
Brown is not being forced to sit on his thumbs.
For someone who, allegedly!!!!, takes pride in details publicly at least he is failing again to communicate. Must be part of his secretive dishonest streak. By that I mean the very best thing he could have done is explain he is babysitting number 10 until a decision is reached and admitted he realises despite the flawed impression the first past the post system gives, theres has been a massive swing away from Labour amongst us , the normal people. He hasnt so I suspect most people who have an opinion on it range from uneasy through to the likes of me who justthink he looks a twat.
Clegg hasn't hijacked anything. Its a nuance of an interesting and unusual situation. He is the desired comrade now. Suits me fine tbh because if the Lib/Tory alliance comes off that's my first and second choices in office with Brown and his motley band of liars relegated. Vince Cable possibly replacing Darling.....how does it get politically any better ;)
As far as power goes, Clegg will wield a fair old bit but still subservient to the Torys.
Electoral change? well Clegg could benifit massively from an alliance with the Torys. as opposed to waiting on Labours promised considerations of it. Their last fruitless look at it was in 1998 so I dont think Clegg will be holding his breath.
Clegg has more in common with the Torys and apparently gets on much better with Cameron than Brown. Therefore the basis for them working together is much sounder, not perfect but sounder than with Labour.
As the Torys have no stated intention of looking at electoral reform (as far as I am aware) Clegg has to be a bit sharp here. Coalition govts have historically been very poor because of differences or very good because they knuckle down and realise they have to work together.Very little middle ground. Proportional representation will very very rarely lead to a clear majority and coalitions will be the norm, so, its a case that the Lib Dems need to demonstrate efficiency of coalition. Working with a party who are not fans of it will be the make or break. If it works, Clegg can go into the next election head held high pointing to evidence of efficiency. If it fails it will tell us what most of us suspect that it isn't effective.
I reckon Lib/Tory govt in place by Sunday evening.
iandouglas
08-05-2010, 12:23
hi .
I re iterate what Andrew K has said "what an interesting thread".
I dont pretend to understand what is going on ,so would like to thank AK.for making it more clear for me,:thumb2
I have always been told that the parties of the day worked together during the 2nd W.W. did this infact happen and WHY.was that decision made and by who.
does anyone think it would be a better government if they worked together for the good of the country.
OR ARE WE BEING STUFFED AGAIN.:confused:
confused of nottingham.
id.
Brown is not being forced to sit on his thumbs.
He has a constitutional duty to "babysit" number 10 until such time as a new government can be formed. The ongoing discussions between NC and DC make it clear that is not now.
He hasnt so I suspect most people who have an opinion on it range from uneasy through to the likes of me who justthink he looks a twat.
After all the expenses nonesense, I'd be surprised if many folks held politicians in higher esteem than say estate agents.
Clegg has more in common with the Torys and apparently gets on much better with Cameron than Brown. Therefore the basis for them working together is much sounder, not perfect but sounder than with Labour.
Sadly, I think you might be right here. I'm sure the other Lib Dem MPs and their executive will put him straight in due course (as will Tory MPs put David Cameron straight).
I reckon Lib/Tory govt in place by Sunday evening.
Cameron said this morning, that it will be Monday at the earliest before the negotiations with the Lib Dems will be concluded. You have to remember that the leaders of the two parties have to carry their MPs, executive and party membership with them in circumstances where a "marriage of convenience" takes place that sidelines some/many of the core beliefs and policies of the parties involved. According to the news this morning, some Tory MPs are so anti any deal with the Lib Dems, that they are asking for a vote of all party members on any proposed agreement.
My bet is that there will be another general election within the next year or 18 months, irrespective of what deal is cooked up.
Andrew
OR ARE WE BEING STUFFED AGAIN.:confused:
confused of nottingham.id.
I don't think it takes too much reading between the lines to conclude that we are going to be "STUFFED AGAIN" by the next government, no matter which parties are involved.
I'm not sure whether you heard it but apparently, the governer of the Bank of England said that it would be in the best interests of political parties to lose the election. He believe that the measures to fix the economy will have to be so draconian that the next government will be the most unpopular ever and are likely to be chucked out at the next election and be out of power for a generation.
The difference between the two main parties on the economy is one of timing. The Conservatives want to stuff you immediately, but Labour want to hold off for a year before stuffing you, so that the recovery is not prejudiced.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
08-05-2010, 15:54
oops sorry, double posted somehow :o
Deleted account DD
08-05-2010, 15:59
He has a constitutional duty to "babysit" number 10 until such time as a new government can be formed.
I think you missed what I was saying, he is doing nothing, he doesn't have to sit on his thumbs, he can get his sorry arse into the media for one thing and explain to us all what's going on. If he wants the luxury central London address and all the trimmings he can try being our leader even during his dying throes
He has a moral if not statutory duty to do that and his lack of immediate public activity following the declarations demonstrate either a lack of savvy or complete arrogant indifference.
He appears secretive and dishonest. That is well evidenced throughout his tenure. He now seems to think that continuing that particular policy and staying behind a guarded door will help him.
As far as "constitutional duties" go that's a very interesting concept. Many people are not aware that we in England do not have a written statutory constitution. No offence is committed if most protocals that do not include criminality are disregarded.
My take is that it has evolved over years based on conventions & rulings as "de facto" which effectively means it exists in practice but not necessarily in law. Its the opposite to many constitutions which tend to be "De Jure" ie in law.
Yes no problem many of its points are enshrined in legal decisions and stated cases but far from all of them and certainly not contained within one written document as say in the USA.
Previously Parliamentary Sovereignty has kept things in line with the "I'm in parliament and I'm in charge" attitude. That sovereignty supposedly puts them above any other official body including the judicial process (hence the need for a second house as a check and balance). However despite this governments current love of passing laws and legislation, I reckon that sovereignty is being eroded as demonstrated by various legal cases and enquiries over the past few years.
The point of my ramblings? Its not clear (to me at least and happy to be shown as wrong) which part of our constitution actually causes Brown to hold onto the keys to number 10 ? and more to the point is it binding. I think not. Clegg actually said, and you cant knock the logic, the pm should be the leader of the party who has the most seats once the declarations are all in and take it from there. We can always go back to the polls if thats wrong.
So why is Brown still there? I suspect its more a skin of the teeth clinging on to the last of the power he so craved for so long rather than moving with the times during an extraordinary episode and actually upping his damaged credibility.
I think you missed what I was saying, he is doing nothing, he doesn't have to sit on his thumbs, he can get his sorry arse into the media for one thing and explain to us all what's going on.
The constitutional position is well known and has been explained by a variety of constitutional "experts" (various Professors of Politics) interviewed on a regular basis on the Beeb and elsewhere. I saw it explained yet again, less than 5 mins before I started tryping this post.
GB did get "his sorry arse" into the media (i.e. he made a public statement about what was going on) and explained what was going on shortly after Nick Clegg made the announcement that he intended to negotiate with the conservatives about forming a new government. Though it was not obvious from the announcement, I would have thought that GB was more than a bit pissed off, as constitutionally it is for the outgoing PM to kickstart the process of replacing the government after an election - not for the leader of the 3rd largest political party. Obviously GB cannot explain where the negotiations between Cameron and Clegg are up to, as he is not party to them.
The UK must have a PM and a government at all times. The Labour government remains in position until a new goverment is ready to take power. It's as simple as that. GB has said that he hopes that a new government can be in place very soon, but from what has been said on the Beeb News Channel, the negotiations between the Lib Dems and Conservative Party could well take at least a week. Apparently, this is not all that unusual in the european countries (i.e. most of them) that are governed by a coalition (or other alliance) of minority parties.
Andrew
makeitfit
08-05-2010, 17:20
I reckon old Brown nose has got the hump 'cause no-one wants to be in his gang:rolleyes:
He's now stripping out no.10 and melting down the silver:lol
He'll be done by tea time tomorrow you watch:D
Poor old Cameroon and Cleggy will have to use McDonalds for their chin wagging while the rest of the Lib.Dems get their club rules re-written 'cause Browns left one chair stuck under the front door handle:lol
Deleted account DD
08-05-2010, 17:49
The constitutional position is well known and has been explained by a variety of constitutional "experts" (various Professors of Politics) interviewed on a regular basis on the Beeb and elsewhere. I saw it explained yet again, less than 5 mins before I started tryping this post.
Youve missed the point again!!!!!! what I effectively asked was that how much of the "constitution" is enforcable or down to statute ? I really dont think you'll be able show me the document or ruling that says he must remain in Downing st (again happy to be shown otherwise :thumb2 )
The Guidance comes from the so called "Cabinet Office Manual" one commentator staed that much of it (not sure if the pm sitting in is one example) is not statutory and not mandatory. Its Gordon "clinging on as long as I can" Browns interpretation of it I'm interested in ;)
I quote from one piece written by peole far more switched on to this than me:
"Of course, Mr Brown could decide that he had "lost" the election and resign even if David Cameron falls short of winning an overall majority when the final results are known today. But there are signs that he may try to hang on in Downing Street if the Tories are about 30 or more seats short of the 326-seat "winning post". Some cabinet ministers speak privately of the need to stop the Tories winning 300 seats for a Labour deal with Nick Clegg's party to be viable, but there are no hard and fast rules."
Much academic comment on "constitutional matters" as you can see is opinion based on previous circumstances and examples. This is a pretty extraordinary situation we find ourselves in and the looseness of our non statutory unwritten constitution lends itself to flexibility. Thats one of many reasons reform ie providing a written constitution has stalled over the years.
GB did get "his sorry arse" into the media (i.e. he made a public statement about what was going on) and explained what was going on shortly after Nick Clegg made the announcement that he intended to negotiate with the conservatives about forming a new government. Though it was not obvious from the announcement, I would have thought that GB was more than a bit pissed off, as constitutionally it is for the outgoing PM to kickstart the process of replacing the government after an election - not for the leader of the 3rd largest political party. Obviously GB cannot explain where the negotiations between Cameron and Clegg are up to, as he is not party to them.
Again point missed. I have not seen much tv today so maybe completely wrong (and again cheerfully accept that) but I suspect I havent missed his "hourly bulletins regarding the uncertainty of our nation" see what I mean? He made a statement yesterday that was quite frankly pathetic. A petulant face and a promise to look at something they've had in the no interest box with the file closed since 1998!
Funny how he fails his moral obligations under crisis. Next the lies perhaps just like when he and Tony B Liar needed a reason to take us to war against Iraq
The UK must have a PM and a government at all times. The Labour government remains in position until a new government is ready to take power. It's as simple as that.
No its not as simple as that. Brown can (via the queen) put anyone he wants in within reason , as a Caretaker Prime Minister , so we would never be Prime ministerless. That was the gist of Cleggs comment based on very doable protocol under our constitutional guidance.
Put more simply, Brown is the leader of the party that is not the most popular as determined by all franchised people in the country. He has the power in his hands to follow our wishes :thumb2
I always believe that people are entitled to their views and should not be oppressed in expressing them in any way shape or form and take a part , as far as is practicable , in the running of their country. All political parties have good and bad points. I have never previously disliked a politician accepting they just hold different views to me. However the one big problem I have with Brown and cronies is that he is very subtly dishonest and I hate that with vengance because it affects me and you directly. That too is easily evidenced. One of the best examples being during one of his budgets where he changed income tax to be more favourable for the majority but changed corporation tax without expanding on detail.Have a look see how that ties in with screwing us to death whilst telling us we are better off, you wont be impressed :(
Deleted account DD
08-05-2010, 17:51
I reckon old Brown nose has got the hump 'cause no-one wants to be in his gang:rolleyes:
He's now stripping out no.10 and melting down the silver:lol
He'll be done by tea time tomorrow you watch:D
Poor old Cameroon and Cleggy will have to use McDonalds for their chin wagging while the rest of the Lib.Dems get their club rules re-written 'cause Browns left one chair stuck under the front door handle:lol
:jesterbg:jesterbg
Is that as well as the fish behind the radiators and the mouldy prawns in the ends of the curtain poles?
Brown can (via the queen) put anyone he wants in within reason , as a Caretaker Prime Minister , so we would never be Prime ministerless.
Why on earth should he do that? It is not for the outgoing prime minister to install others as caretraker prime ministers. If he went to see the queen and resigned because he was unable to form a new government, the queen would invite David Cameron and ask him whether he could form a government.
At the moment, no one can form a new government.
Put more simply, Brown is the leader of the party that is not the most popular as determined by all franchised people in the country. He has the power in his hands to follow our wishes
"Our wishes" being ...... what exactly? Do you mean your wishes?
I always believe that people are entitled to their views and should not be oppressed in expressing them in any way shape or form and take a part , as far as is practicable , in the running of their country.
If only that happened ........
We have a form of representational democracy that boils down to voting for people that you don't really know, once every four or five years, and then have those who get elected seemingly do whatever they wish until the next election.
We would need a total change in the system of government in this country for the public to be involved in running the country in any meaningful way.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
08-05-2010, 18:26
Why on earth should he do that?
Why on earth shouldnt he? its on the news on the tv right beside me, they are discussing the fact that there is nothing at all to stop Brown stepping aside ;)
"Our wishes" being ...... what exactly? Do you mean your wishes?
The manner of your short question is very interesting and actually reflects the attitude of this government.
My wishes are coincidental, Our wishes mean the wishes of the majority of the population who amongst other things demonstrated very clearly that Labour are no longer the choice of the people , thats known as the "swing" and was demonstrated to perfection by the poll results. Brown has remained with the first past the post system so must take heed of the results from it. They do not have any kind of majority at all, the only firm thing thats keeping them in power is the fact that Brown has the keys to number 10 (and even 11) but thats as tenuous as his overall position.
Under the leadership of Brown the Labour Govt choose again to ignore the majority of people of the country, it is as simple as that.
If only that happened ........
Hence the use of the word "practicable" Proportional representation is widely seen as being theoretically very fair but usually inefficient in Govt.............unless someone can show the efficient side of the coin.....over to you Clegg ;)
makeitfit
08-05-2010, 18:28
:jesterbg:jesterbg
Is that as well as the fish behind the radiators and the mouldy prawns in the ends of the curtain poles?
That and folding the sheets in half:lol
I'll be off now and let you two work things out :cool:
Deleted account DD
08-05-2010, 20:02
That and folding the sheets in half:lol
I'll be off now and let you two work things out :cool:
;) I'm all worked out ta :thumb2
i say paul ( bat 21 ) should start his own party :D
Our wishes mean the wishes of the majority of the population who amongst other things demonstrated very clearly that Labour are no longer the choice of the people
Neither of the other two parties has a majority of the seats in the house, so the same could equally be said of them.
It feels odd that the two parties trying to negotiate are the ones that, in policy terms are furthest apart. Both Labour and the Conservatives are hell bent on replacing Trident (FWIW, I'd scrap it). They are both also (at best) luke warm on electoral reform. The LIb Dems have strongly opposing views on both.
I have heard it said that we find ourselves in an economic position so serious and of such common concern that maybe we should have a "Government of National Unity" of the kind that existed in the war years. If the election result can be said to express the wishes of the people, it seems reasonable to conclude that such a government is what the people actually want. Maybe if the Lib Dems and Conservatives cannot find sufficient common ground that both their leaders and rank & file will accept as the basis for an agreement, other than having another immediate election, it might be the only way forward.
Andrew
Surely that arrangement would mean we still have Brown as the "squatting Prime Minister" ? Without a majority party or combination thereof to displace the incumbents Brown will just stay where he is taking the country further down the road to ruin.
I have no real idea what it would mean. We haven't had one of those in my lifetime. I doubt that a government of national unity would elect Gordon Brown as its leader. :eek:
Andrew
The old saying .cometh the hour come the man, should hold true,but I think that any move to a unity government would still need a silver bullet and stake in the heart to rid ourselves of the sitting P.M.-Personally the silver bullet is too good for him,given that had we had more helicopters in the Iraq/Afghan operations less men would have been exposed to the I.E.D.'s And remain in no doubt it was that ba-----d who deprived the military of the budget to buy them. You have probably gathered that I do not think much of the current P.M.
Mike.
The old saying .cometh the hour come the man, should hold true,but I think that any move to a unity government would still need a silver bullet and stake in the heart to rid ourselves of the sitting P.M
He is now just a caretaker until a new PM replaces him. That will happen just as soon as there is an agreement between the parties that will create an alliance having a majority of MPs. This seems to explain the situation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667820.stm
Andrew
You have probably gathered that I do not think much of the current P.M.
I can absolutely guarantee that you will come to hate the next PM, no matter who he is.
You might like this link:
Bank governor warns of economic nightmare that will keep party that wins election out of power for a generation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269787/Mervyn-King-said-public-anger-austerity-cuts-affect-British-politics-generation.html
Andrew
I can absolutely guarantee that you will come to hate the next PM, no matter who he is.
You might like this link:
Bank governor warns of economic nightmare that will keep party that wins election out of power for a generation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269787/Mervyn-King-said-public-anger-austerity-cuts-affect-British-politics-generation.html
Andrew
"A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn't like the tune." - Anon
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 08:50
I have no real idea what it would mean. We haven't had one of those in my lifetime. I doubt that a government of national unity would elect Gordon Brown as its leader. :eek:
Andrew
The closest was Major. He became unelected PM but went to the polls very quickly. He indicated at the time that if any other party gained more seats than him , and thats the key, he would immediately step aside.Say what you want about him and the egg woman, he had higher standards than the current incumbent.
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 09:08
"A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn't like the tune." - Anon
Absolutely correct, though some seem to have selective deafness. Funnily enough too, I think its fair to say that we have a good old cross section of folk on this forum. This poll was only a small one but the results (bearing in mind it closed before the election) reflected the general populations aparent views with regard to who came out on top.
Seems a pretty consistent tune throughout the country to me.
Neither of the other two parties has a majority of the seats in the house, so the same could equally be said of them.
Without getting into the realms of simple and absolute majorities the Tories are ahead on number of seats as an insular group and theres nothing at all to stop Brown going now. As I said in a much earlier post thats in assoc with HM plc. Unfortunately that BBC article explaining that leans very much on ye olde Britain and ignores 2 important points.
1/The Queen in this day and age is what is virtually what is known as a titular (that used to get a snigger at college) head of state and as expressed in the article is reluctant to dabble directly. Therefore she is highly unlikely to intervene in any way other than her seniors having a few quiet chats in dusty corridors, that of course harping back more on a de facto basis to checks and balances on Parliamentary sovereignty rather than a practical intervention :thumb2
2/It takes no account of the perenial debate that the country is effectively run in any case by senior civil servants so it doesnt actually matter that much who sits on the throne at Downing street:augie
One interesting subtlety is where it say the "Queen is obliged" then concedes "by long established convention" in other words its not statutory or even mandatory, its potentially wide open to interpretation in its application. So where's our "constitution" now :confused:
Surely that arrangement would mean we still have Brown as the "squatting Prime Minister" ? Without a majority party or combination thereof to displace the incumbents Brown will just stay where he is taking the country further down the road to ruin.
Correct, unfortunately, he can hang on in there as long as he wants if he interprets our "constitution" to his advantage.
His attitude was summed up by a comment on have I got news for you which said (words to the effect of) "Odd how Brown never showed any interest in proportional representation ............ until Friday" :lol:lol:lol:lol
Funny and sadly accurate, a true reflection of their morals.
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 09:14
I can absolutely guarantee that you will come to hate the next PM, no matter who he is.
Depends on how aware you are of the background and what a poisoned chalice this election has been I suppose ;)
ps why "he" :confused:
You might like this link:
Bank governor warns of economic nightmare that will keep party that wins election out of power for a generation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1269787/Mervyn-King-said-public-anger-austerity-cuts-affect-British-politics-generation.html
LMAO............creates a bit of a conundrum doesnt it,
option 1 leave Brown in clinging on and allow him to be booted out "for a generation" even though we will Greece number 2 (metaphorically) by then
option 2 let someone who isnt as financially illiterate have a pop, hopefully clean things up a little but get booted out by those unaware of why things were so tough.
:doh:doh
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 09:58
I have heard it said that we find ourselves in an economic position so serious and of such common concern that maybe we should have a "Government of National Unity" of the kind that existed in the war years. If the election result can be said to express the wishes of the people, it seems reasonable to conclude that such a government is what the people actually want. Maybe if the Lib Dems and Conservatives cannot find sufficient common ground that both their leaders and rank & file will accept as the basis for an agreement, other than having another immediate election, it might be the only way forward.
Andrew
Are you advocating abandoning the first past the post on the basis of a result :eek::eek:
I would say if they did it goes against all principles of democracy and sends out a very clear signal that if you dont like the result you can change it. It would be a move without lawful underpinning and without precedent other than in a Classic Dictatorship. Are we taking a lead from Mugabe here :confused:
If they want PR or similar they should initiate the system before the election. I for one included considerations of who I DIDNT want in office when I cast my vote.
In a couple of articles I have read, the "Government of National Unity" is described as "Utopian ideal" and "wish list material"
There is one forum where its described as "head up" somewhere, didnt bother reading that one :augie;)
I would say if they did it goes against all principles of democracy and sends out a very clear signal that if you dont like the result you can change it.
The majority of people voted in the election for parties that are left of centre. It would seem that Nick Clegg prefers a right of centre government, is seeking that and is trying to take his party with him. I can only guess at his real motivation, but strongly suspect that it has more to do with having his bum on a minister's chair than it has to do with principle.
At the next election, if the majority of people wish to vote for a left of centre government, there will only be one place on the ballot paper for them to put their cross.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 10:24
If the election result can be said to express the wishes of the people, it seems reasonable to conclude that such a government is what the people actually want
.
Got me on a roll now ;)
Didnt realise the figures ie the wishes of the franchised people, were actually so clear. The shift from Labour is infinitely clear looking a the swing:
Tories +3.8% (gained 97 seats) , Libs +1 (lost 5) , Lab -6.2 (lost 91)
and of the votes cast:
Tories 36%, Libs 23%, Lab 29%.
Now I'm no mathematician but the first set of figures show the publics view very clearly. If you want to talk prop rep the second set are even clearer :naughty
Browns position is untenable in a democracy. Not just my opinion, its fact !
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 10:26
The majority of people voted in the election for parties that are left of centre. It would seem that Nick Clegg prefers a right of centre government, is seeking that and is trying to take his party with him. I can only guess at his real motivation, but strongly suspect that it has more to do with having his bum on a minister's chair than it has to do with principle.
I actually agree with you on that one.
As my politics are basically centre to right I personally would be most happy with that result :thumbs:thumbs
I actually agree with you on that one.
As my politics are basically centre to right I personally would be most happy with that result :thumbs:thumbs
monster raving loony party made sense for once :augie
"A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn't like the tune." - Anon
As multi-millionaires, I don't suppose either David Cameron or Nick Clegg will worry that much they their current careers might be over after the next election.
Andrew
ps why "he" :confused:
Do you really think that any woman would be daft enough to want to be the next PM? I think not - it takes arrogance in spades to want that - and the two with those qualities are huddled in negotiation now.
Andrew
Are you advocating abandoning the first past the post on the basis of a result :eek::eek:
On the contrary, proportional representation would result in outcomes that give minor parties an inappropriate (excessive) amount of power. The present result could well become typical if the first past the post system was abandoned.
If you read my post again, you'll see that it begins "I have heard it said". IIRC, it was Michael Portillo who was saying it (but not advocating it).
Andrew
Tories 36%, Libs 23%, Lab 29%.
The Lib Dems are a left of centre party. Most political commentators seem to regard them as being to the left of the Labour Party.
When I was at school, 23% + 29% was greater than 36%.
Andrew
As my politics are basically centre to right I personally would be most happy with that result :thumbs:thumbs
So would I, as I think that Mervyn King may well be right.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 12:08
The Lib Dems are a left of centre party. Most political commentators seem to regard them as being to the left of the Labour Party.
and as you yourself said they're shuffling to the right. The days of clearly defined left right or centre mainstream parties is acknowledged as long gone. Particularly with reference to the examples of both Tony BLiar & Camerons politics
When I was at school, 23% + 29% was greater than 36%.
Andrew
Your schoolboy maths may be correct but the application of them in context to the debate isnt ;)
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 12:16
On the contrary, proportional representation would result in outcomes that give minor parties an inappropriate (excessive) amount of power. The present result could well become typical if the first past the post system was abandoned.
If you read my post again, you'll see that it begins "I have heard it said". IIRC, it was Michael Portillo who was saying it (but not advocating it).
Andrew
Ive read the post several times already ;) the proposal is essentialy a coalition. I reiterate on the basis of seats lost and gained, and even deeper, the proportion of votes won it is clear the majority want a new broom.
We run under a first past the post, very little of what is going on is legally enforcable. Therefore we should follow 1/ those figures ....which leads to........2/ the clear wishes of the franchised public in determining the primary party. It is then up to them to decide what they want to do to get a ruling majority.
You will never shift me on that one ;)
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 12:23
Do you really think that any woman would be daft enough to want to be the next PM?
Not at the mo, only one of the best pms we ever had did who demonstrated qualities, like em or not, that our new (or old pm in new clothes) is going to have to demonstrate in shed loads.
Anyway busy afternoon coming up no time for interesting things like this :D
Your schoolboy maths may be correct but the application of them in context to the debate isnt ;)
It will be interesting to see, at the next election, the extent to which those schoolboys maths stack up. It will not be good for the Lib Dems if those who thought they were voting for a principled left of centre party come to realise that they were mistaken.
I've been having a ponder this morning about which cabinet seats I'd give to the Lib Dems if I were David Cameron. Whilst the titles might be slightly different :lol, maybe something along these lines ........
Nick Clegg - Minister for Electoral Reform
Vince Cable - Minister for Taking the Blame
Paddy Ashdown - Minister who should have known better.
Can you suggest what names DC might actually choose for these posts?
Andrew
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 14:42
No idea which way they'll stack up at the next election but Cameron is ahead of any other single group on seats held which brings me neatly into one question I've been itching to ask but waiting to see if anyone has actually thought of in this flurry coalition excitement,
What is to stop Brown following the wishes of the electorate and stepping aside allowing Cameron to form a minority government :confused:
The answer starts with noth and ends in ing :D
Thats the measure of Brown, his desire for powere, his morals and his relationship with the electorate in a simple question and answer.
What is to stop Brown following the wishes of the electorate and stepping aside allowing Cameron to form a minority government :confused:
Why do you keep making nonesense statements about the wishes of the electorate? More than 50% of the electorate voted for left of centre parties and not for Cameron. Cameron does not have a majority of the vote or a majority of seats.
The Queen's speech is due on 25th May 2010. If Cameron is installed as PM now and cannot come to an agreement with the Lib Dems, then he will be defeated on the Queen's Speech and will have to resign. Is that what you want to happen?
Andrew
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 17:50
Why do you keep making nonesense statements about the wishes of the electorate? More than 50% of the electorate voted for left of centre parties and not for Cameron. Cameron does not have a majority of the vote or a majority of seats.
Because its not nonsense (that's your ill evidenced opinion). You really seem to be struggling with this concept and process . Perhaps there is a case for a statutory de jour constitution that's easy to follow, I don't know :nenau ;)
It is actually a very very simple concept but you need to understand some basic principles to follow it:
The Tories led by Cameron polled more votes but crucially obtained more seats than another single party. As we don't have pr, love it or loathe it, the first past the post system we do have, in theory gives him the right to take office albeit with a minority govt and now as the weekend passes imho on a higher moral footing than Browns right to stay in office.
HE THEN would decide if he wants to pursue minority rule or go coalition.
Lets be very clear on this Cameron and Clegg do not technically in the first instance set up a coalition. Camerons govt invites Clegg and his MPs to join them to form a majority coalition govt.
Thats the established protocol of it , but what's stopping him?
Quite simply Brown not moving out because he doesn't have to, the only reason he doesn't have to is because he almost has squatters rights for now whilst he's in denial, clinging on however you want to describe it, maybe waiting on the chance the Libs wont go in with the Tories? :nenau
Therefore Cameron has to take option 2 prove he has outline agreement to form a coalition to give a ruling majority, which is exactly what is going on now. Then he can go and knock on Browns door and bluntly say "Youre stuffed Sunshine....out"
And who provided the impetus to make all of this come about ?
The franchised folk of our fair land in accordance with the first past the post system we have by one action or another and we've all got to live with it for now.
Like it or not, see it as unfair or not:
The people have given Cameron the mandate in accordance with the rules.
Thats the way it is..........Simples.......Sorted
:thumbs
ps dont forget Blair and by default Brown got into office under the very same first past the post process and can be quoted as claiming to represent the people. He cant change the goalposts now ;)
The Queen's speech is due on 25th May 2010. If Cameron is installed as PM now and cannot come to an agreement with the Lib Dems, then he will be defeated on the Queen's Speech and will have to resign. Is that what you want to happen?
If if and buts were worth money there'd be some very rich people about.
What if Clegg ambushes Cameron on policy? what if Brown doesnt resign and regroups?
More to worry about at the minute quite frankly which is probably why Clegg amongst others is taking his time.
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 18:02
ps the "some people didnt vote for them" argument is a very old and tired one, although I'll grant you it does suggest a need for reform but certainly for now we're stuck with first past the post :thumb2
Quite simply Brown not moving out because he doesn't have to, the only reason he doesn't have to is because he almost has squatters rights for now
Government has to go on whilst the Tories and Lib Dems are squabbling (err sorry, negotiating) about the form that an agreement might take. I understand that you don't like the description - but those "squatters rights" as you call them are referred to as "constitutional duty" by the Beeb and just about everyone I've seen them interview recently.
Who would you have sent to the EU Finance ministers meeting today? Vince Cable?
Andrew
ps the "some people didnt vote for them" argument is a very old and tired one
An overwhelming majority of the electorate did not vote Conservative. Even a majority of those who actually voted put their 'X' against someone other than a Conservative.
Government can continue only if you have a majority in the house. At the moment, DC does not - though the Lib Dems may well present him with one.
"They sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7).
Andrew
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 18:23
An overwhelming majority of the electorate did not vote Conservative. Even a majority of those who actually voted put their 'X' against someone other than a Conservative.
Government can continue only if you have a majority in the house. At the moment, DC does not - though the Lib Dems may well present him with one.
"They sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7).
Andrew
If you are going to perpetuate a debate or pass comment please at least have the decency to put any quotation used in full or explain the context of the part you are using.
Your quotation above is only half of what I said and has the opposite meaning of what I actually intimated.
If you are going to perpetuate a debate or pass comment please at least have the decency to put any quotation used in full or explain the context of the part you are using.
Your quotation above is only half of what I said and has the opposite meaning of what I actually intimated.
why cant they take turns according to their percentage of the vote ? :augie:lol
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 18:36
. I understand that you don't like the description - but those "squatters rights" as you call them are referred to as "constitutional duty" by the Beeb and just about everyone I've seen them interview recently.
Ok then Andrew I can produce as quotes (and did from a broadsheet) to the contrary as well as reference to the cabinet guidance.
But as you seem you seem to rely heavily on the "constitution" , a term I definitely have no problem with when understood correctly. Youre saying Brown has to remain in office so please supply me with a link to the place where it says that is a constitutional requirement, I mean 100% statutory, not moral or protocol. I will happily be shown to be wrong if you find it, I really dont think it exists but as my studying was some years ago I could easily be wrong.
I think tbh you'll find the BEEB use the term constitution in its general sense and would refer you back to a much earlier post explaining quite clearly the basis of our constitution along with the whys and wherefores of how it can be ignored
Who would you have sent to the EU Finance ministers meeting today? Vince Cable?
I would hope you know in your heart of hearts that's a rather silly question and appears only as a poor attempt at sarcasm ;)
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 18:42
Government can continue only if you have a majority in the house.
You are fundamentally wrong in anything but a 2 party system.
Harold Wilson formed and led in the first instance a minority government from 1974. He did not have a ruling majority. Maybe a lot of work for the party whip though?
Cameron is the first past the post with most seats so has the right to do just that if the current folk move on ;)
Subsequent coalition arrangements can be set up once the politicians are in place and can actually be formal or informal.
extreme-4x4
09-05-2010, 18:51
see if you had all voted the same. none of this would be an issue;)
what i dont get and still dont... how can we be at war with countries and the reason they say we are fighting is because these countries are run by dictators or dont have a democracy
well no one voted brown into power. and he has just done an election and lost , yet he is still in power.
but what do i know.
although a massive insult to the families of the soldiers who have not come home . if you ask me
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 19:02
see if you had all voted the same. none of this would be an issue;)
what i dont get and still dont... how can we be at war with countries and the reason they say we are fighting is because these countries are run by dictators or dont have a democracy
well no one voted brown into power. and he has just done an election and lost , yet he is still in power.
but what do i know.
although a massive insult to the families of the soldiers who have not come home . if you ask me
:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2:thumb2: thumb2:thumb2 :bow:bow
I'm enjoying this but dont get me started on Iraq........I get angry then :(
One of ours is off to Afghan (a different kettle of fish imho) soon for a second tour, we worry already.
But as you seem you seem to rely heavily on the "constitution" , a term I definitely have no problem with when understood correctly. Youre saying Brown has to remain in office so please supply me with a link to the place where it says that is a constitutional requirement, I mean 100% statutory, not moral or protocol.
I'd suggest that you spend a little time LISTENING to the news on the BBC. Just five minutes ago, they reported that Gordon Brown would have been told "in no uncertain terms" by the cabinet secretary that he had a duty to remain as prime minister until a new one is available.
If you don't like their use of terminology, feel free to argue with them. Poor as I think that some of the Beeb reporting has been during the election campaign, it is what most folks use to discover what is going on and what the relevant processes are.
Andrew
You are fundamentally wrong in anything but a 2 party system.
Harold Wilson formed and led in the first instance a minority government from 1974. He did not have a ruling majority. Maybe a lot of work for the party whip though?
Cameron is the first past the post with most seats so has the right to do just that if the current folk move on ;)
Subsequent coalition arrangements can be set up once the politicians are in place and can actually be formal or informal.
dave, have you ever thought about standing as an MP, you seem to be knowledgeable about politics and have some valid and strong points,but not everyone would agree with you, and i don't really see what what this thread is doing on here to be honest, it will probably lead to arguments.
it doesn't matter who gets in, they will only line their own pockets, especially the Tories. amen.
Now Now
Whoever gets in get ready for it
B.O.H.I.C.A
so it does not matter
paulp
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 19:14
I'd suggest that you spend a little time LISTENING to the news on the BBC. Just five minutes ago, they reported that Gordon Brown would have been told "in no uncertain terms" by the cabinet secretary that he had a duty to remain as prime minister until a new one is available.
If you don't like their use of terminology, feel free to argue with them. Poor as I think that some of the Beeb reporting has been during the election campaign, it is what most folks use to discover what is going on and what the relevant processes are.
Andrew
I'm actually on sky, have been all day so apart from a few looks on ITV and BBC (broader research means better informed opinion) That and contradictory messages have being flowing forth all day. Its nice putting a day aside to sit in the conservatory ;)
The cabinet secretary is only of course putting forward yet another message. Please dont put words in my mouth, I did not say I didnt like the terminology.
That is why I asked you for the link to the statutory requirement for him to remain in post. Have you found it yet? ;)
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 19:18
dave, have you ever thought about standing as an MP, you seem to be knowledgeable about politics and have some valid and strong points,but not everyone would agree with you, and i don't really see what what this thread is doing on here to be honest, it will probably lead to arguments.
it doesn't matter who gets in, they will only line their own pockets, especially the Tories. amen.
:thumbs ta, I just might and as I said earlier each persons politics are their right.
I studied politics and got good (not marvellous :augie too pissed too often) grades and was going to go onto uni but I did my political bit by joining the armed forces and utilising superior fire power as foreign policy :D
Tbh I dont consider this more than healthy debate and I enjoy it, if anyones getting upset I'll happily stop. You can go round in circles with politics :naughty
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 19:21
ps Tezzer, I agree completely. Whoever gets in we're fcuked for the next few years at least :nenau
Harold Wilson formed and led in the first instance a minority government from 1974. He did not have a ruling majority. Maybe a lot of work for the party whip though?
As no doubt you are aware, there was a general election on 28 Feb 1974. The sitting Prime Minister, Ted Heath did not secure a majority and spent several days negotiating with Jeremy Thorpe, the then leader of the Liberal Party. He did not resign until 4 March 1974.
It was only after Ted Heath resigned that Harold Wilson was invited by the Queen to form a government. The minority government lasted little more than 6 months and there was another election on 10 October 1974.
I cannot help but wonder how any new government would fare, if another election was forced within a year. If Mervyn King is to be believed - probably very very badly.
Andrew
B.O.H.I.C.A
No, this time it will be much MUCH worse.
Andrew
That is why I asked you for the link to the statutory requirement for him to remain in post. Have you found it yet? ;)
Did I forget to say it? My apologies. I'll say it now - DYOR!!
Andrew
Tbh I dont consider this more than healthy debate and I enjoy it, if anyones getting upset I'll happily stop.
Ditto.
Andrew
ps Tezzer, I agree completely. Whoever gets in we're fcuked for the next few years at least :nenau
I agree completely also.
The extent to which any individual (or family) is f****d depends on how financially secure/robust you are and on the party or parties that come to form the government.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 19:39
Did I forget to say it? My apologies. I'll say it now - DYOR!!
Andrew
:jesterbg:jesterbg:jesterbg
Absolutely not, I dont need to. You do though to support your argument and constitutional comments which seem to form the basis for your points sadly being based on shifting sands.
What with that. partial or out of context quotes and trying to put words in my mouth youre either a very weak debater or a closet labour politician :lol
Watching and endlessly the BBC probably satisfies the above but not a lot else.
See the quote (or certainly accurate paraphrase) in my sig,it was a singular rather arrogant uninvited comment I observed how profound and accurate that person was without realising it. Does it sound familiar ?
:thumb2:augie:naughty
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 19:50
As no doubt you are aware, there was a general election on 28 Feb 1974. The sitting Prime Minister, Ted Heath did not secure a majority and spent several days negotiating with Jeremy Thorpe, the then leader of the Liberal Party. He did not resign until 4 March 1974.
It was only after Ted Heath resigned that > Harold Wilson <was invited by the Queen to form a government. The minority government lasted little more than 6 months and there was another election on 10 October 1974.
yes so who formed the minority government you clearly and incorrectly said was a situation that could not occur ?
Government can continue only if you have a majority in the house.
hint.........the answers above and in my post ;)
Its entirely doable :clap
a closet labour politician.
Good heavens, no :eek::eek:
For the next year or so, labour politicians would do well to keep their heads below the parapet.
If I were a labour politician, my immediate priorities would, I think, be to:
1) Encourage Gordon Brown not to overdo any overtures to Nick Clegg, else Cleggy might actually start to believe that Gordon is serious about some sort of agreement between Labour and the Lib Dems. I suppose he could always put him off with another phone call lecturing him about constitutional propriety. :sly
2) Campaign within the party to reject any agreement with the Lib Dems in the very unlikely event that one surfaces. The very last thing the Labour party needs is to be in power for at least the next year or so.
Andrew
yes so who formed the minority government you clearly and incorrectly said was a situation that could not occur ?
You seem to have misunderstood what I intended. A minority government can remain in power - but only if it is not voted down by greater numbers amongst the opposition. It will not have escaped your attention that the first Wilson government of 1974 didn't last very long.
It needs the goodwill of some number of the opposition (so as to form a majority in the house) to remain in power. At the moment, David Cameron is in the process of trying to generate that goodwill by negotiating with the Lib Dems. If his attitude had instead been "stuff you lot", we are going to govern as a minority then his premiership might not have lasted beyond 25th May 2010.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 20:27
Apologies if I appear to have misunderstood but the point is there is nothing at all other than Brown stopping the Tories moving into office. Browns position is no stronger than Camerons, in fact probably weaker other than possession being etc. Cameron has a clear mandate from the ballot box.
There is no problem in the formation of a minority government and pending amongst other things opposition party attendance on the day and whip activity theres no reason they cannot get things voted through.
More importantly than worrying about that I am still waiting for that link to guidance which you firmly believes exists in one form or another and therfore locatable hopefully in its statutory form ;)
I reckon it doesn't exist, cant find it and therefore whilst strongly backing up my argument unfortunately means I cant point you towards (having done myor research days ago :D)
Very firmly over to you :augie
there is nothing at all other than Brown stopping the Tories moving into office.
You cannot substantiate that.
The BBC have, for days, been wheeling various Professors of Political Science behind the microphone to ask about the constitutional position. They have all said the same thing. Gordon Brown has a constitutional duty to remain as PM until a new PM is available to replace him. It will not be known who that is until NC and DC (and/or GB) and their respective parties finish their (now becoming protracted) negotiations.
These professor characters are the same constitutional experts that would have been your lecturers had you chosen to continue your studies in political science. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that they know a lot more than I do about the subject. I'm not sure, though, why you seem not to accept the authority of their "expert" opinion.
Andrew
as a further debate point , may i ask what people think is the single most important issue facing this country at this time ?
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 21:48
You cannot substantiate that.
To the same degree as you have watching the BBC to support your side of the debate I can and have, the quotation I gave you ages ago was from a respected political analyst writing in a respected paper,it and other examples are out there ;)
The BBC have, for days, been wheeling various Professors of Political Science behind the microphone to ask about the constitutional position. They have all said the same thing. Gordon Brown has a constitutional duty to remain as PM until a new PM is available to replace him. It will not be known who that is until NC and DC (and/or GB) and their respective parties finish their (now becoming protracted) negotiations.
These professor characters are the same constitutional experts that would have been your lecturers had you chosen to continue your studies in political science. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that they know a lot more than I do about the subject. I'm not sure, though, why you seem not to accept the authority of their "expert" opinion.
"Accepting Authority of their expert opinion" hmmmmmm........ you shoot your own argument in the foot with that very last statement.
You say opinion, yes thats correct it is opinion.I respect their opinion based on their understanding and knowledge of the constitution which is way above mine.
However the devils in the details and thats what youre missing.
Way back up this post and throughout libraries and internet material my explanation and those of people far brighter than me on the same topic tell you one thing very clearly.
A massive amount of our constitution is not de jure, it is de facto and therefore not a statutory requirement. I have a very strong suspicion the requirement of this particular so called constitutional duty is via evolved protocols rather than statutory duty. Therefore no criminal harm done if a credible replacement is installed as he leaves.
It would be unusual for Brown to ignore protocol and would mean him giving up the power he adores but there again they've got previous for disregarding historic arrangements and we are in extraordinary times so he should listen to the evidenced views expressed via the ballot box.
Therefore I will quote you directly with regards to Brown has to stay put:
You cannot substantiate that.
and repeat my request for you to do so via the relevant statutory instruments.
Particularly relevant as you yourself used the term "opinion" and made no reference to the statutory instruments they were perhaps talking about. I'm only sorry I cant prove the non existance of them but of course doing that's a conundrum too far ;)
Until then I'm afraid your assertions that he cannot leave office are flawed to the degree they are worthless. My heads getting sore banging it off the wall so realistically theres no future in this strand, until you identify that statutory instrument and support your argument. I'm sure you'll agree :nenau
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 21:49
as a further debate point , may i ask what people think is the single most important issue facing this country at this time ?
Establishing a stable and credible administration in accordance with the mandate given via the ballot box.
Establishing a stable and credible administration in accordance with the mandate given via the ballot box.
not winning the world cup then ? :augie
Deleted account DD
09-05-2010, 22:41
not winning the world cup then ? :augie
No....thats the impossible dream ;)
may i ask what people think is the single most important issue facing this country at this time ?
Winning the world cup would be nice - as would winning the ICC World Twenty20 Cricket 2010 cup.
For the politicians, I think dealing with the financial crisis we face whilst simultaneously trying to minimise the amount of harm to the maximum number of people.
Having a policy to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million does not convince me that the party most likely to form a government shares my hopes for minimising harm.
Andrew
Particularly relevant as you yourself used the term "opinion" and made no reference to the statutory instruments they were perhaps talking about. I'm only sorry I cant prove the non existance of them but of course doing that's a conundrum too far ;)
The best advice that GB can get is that from the cabinet secretary. The advice given by the constitutional experts fielded by the Beeb is as I have explained - and seems to be the same. Your arguments to the contrary are just political posturing. I strongly suspect that it is you that is the closet politician.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 00:11
The best advice that GB can get is that from the cabinet secretary. The advice given by the constitutional experts fielded by the Beeb is as I have explained - and seems to be the same. Your arguments to the contrary are just political posturing. I strongly suspect that it is you that is the closet politician.
roflmao.
Posturing? err not remotely my style.
There's quite a few people who could relate how I've demonstrated my hands on forthright style to their expense :augie;)
As the BBC experts opinions are in contradiction to other experts opinions, as per the one I handed you on a plate and explained, its stalemate in that area so stop banging on about it unless you can quote the next one when they describe the de jour/de facto nuances ;) I dont think that will happen as these very knowledgeable interesting individuals only get chance to briefly and superficially comment to a degree thats good non anorak viewing for the masses.
Overall though that's quite a vacuous poorly thought out accusation of yours, I reckon you are struggling, but hey what do I care because you are still failing to evidence your other assertions too which should be easy if theyre correct :nenau :D
Have you still not found the statutory instrument may prove your point? :augie
Especially bearing in mind Ive said I would have no problem being proven wrong....I do accept being wrong with good grace ;) it happens quite often actually.
If you cant its not called me posturing, its called me winning that point :clap:clap
ps theres nothing closet about my political activities, staff rep for many years (we're not allowed unions you see) :naughty
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 00:21
=========
sorry about that, double posted!
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 00:26
The best advice that GB can get is that from the cabinet secretary.
Without googling or similar (unless you already have),
tell me why that is?
and...........
Where does the cabinet secretary get there info from? who is the current cabinet secretary , are they a constitutional barrister or an admin person ? what is their full time day job about ? How long has the current one been in post? what is there cv like? what level of civil service are they?
If you cant answer those and other questions you really cant make that assertion ;)
as i understand it , the problem is no one wants a unelected person (s) deciding policies of this country ...... so i assume then that they want the house of lords disbanded ? :augie
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 09:27
as i understand it , the problem is no one wants a unelected person (s) deciding policies of this country ...... so i assume then that they want the house of lords disbanded ? :augie
The administration thats in power was elected, their choice of leader is up to them.....unfortunatley :(
The House of Lords are something thats unlikely to be sorted in our lifetimes!
I have just been watching a recording, on the Beeb, of part of the meeting of the Justice Committee on 24 Feb 2010 on the topic "Constitutional processes following a general election". The document recording the minutes of that meeting is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/10022401.htm
Question 1 and the answer to that are:
" Q1 Chairman: Lord Butler, Lord Turnbull, welcome. We are very glad to have your help and advice and I am sure the whole country is going to be glad to have your help and advice. Lord Butler, you and I have been here before in February 1974, I remember. Are the procedures for the formation of a government following a general election in which there is no overall majority clear at least in the minds of those most closely involved? What is your experience?
Lord Butler of Brockwell: I think that they are clear and that they are simple. The convention is that the Prime Minister before the election remains Prime Minister until it is clear that he can no longer command the majority in Parliament, and that somebody else can. I think it may be the popular myth that the Prime Minister loses office if his party is defeated in a general election, but that is not the position. The Prime Minister remains Prime Minister until he cannot command a majority in Parliament and somebody else can."
Unless I am mistaken, your view coincides with the "popular myth" described by Lord Butler of Brockwell. If I am mistaken, perhaps you would explain what your view is, with some clarity.
During the part of the recording that I had the patience to sit through, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at Oxford University confirmed Lord Butler's statement. There was further confirmation and no dissent from other expert witnesses to the committee. These included: Professor Robert Hazell, Constitution Unit, UCL (who is one of the "experts" that I have seen interviewed by the Beeb), Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service and others.
If your opinion differs from that of the foremost experts on constitutional processes, I think you need to explain why it does. I suspect that you are simply promoting the "popular myth" because it suits your particular political perspective.
Andrew
From the few moments that I was able to grab this morning to listen to the news, it would seem that the leadership of the Conservatives and Lib Dems are close to reaching some kind of agreement, so hopefully the situation should clarify in the next day or so.
Whether they can sell the agreement to their MPs and their party activists is another matter entirely. Seemingly there are many "red neck" (whatever that means) Tories who would prefer not to have anything to do with the Lib Dems and want to have a go at a governing with a minority. There are also several senior Lib Dem MPs who believe that many of those who put their 'X' on the ballot paper against a Lib Dem candidate would not approve of an agreement that would support a Conservative government - and that the Lib Dems would get "slaughtered" at the next election.
Apparently, the pollsters have evidence that about two thirds of Lib Dem voters are "left of centre". If those migrated to Labour at the next election, the term "slaughter" could understate what would happen.
Andrew
The House of Lords are something thats unlikely to be sorted in our lifetimes!
Didn't you read the Labour Manifesto 2010 (no, me neither :doh)? Tut tut .....
See 9:2 here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/10022401.htm
Andrew
I have just come across an interesting answer in the Justice Commitee minutes that I referred to above:
Q13 Dr Whitehead: There is the circumstance under which the incumbent Prime Minister stays on, as it were, as chief adviser to the Sovereign, over and above his political imperative to form a government; but at what point does the leader of the next largest party get invited to be involved in the process or get invited to the Palace?
Lord Turnbull: Only when the Prime Minister has concluded that he cannot form a government himself. I think we can take this one stage further: I do not think that in his role as adviser to the Sovereign he can simply go to the Palace and say: "I cannot make it work; you will have to try someone else." I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to present to the Sovereign an alternative arrangement which he believes is going to work and that has been agreed. In other words, it would be a dereliction of duty for the outgoing Prime Minister to leave a limbo in which the Queen has got to try and make a decision. The last thing you want is the Queen to be presented with trying something out which may not command political support. It has happened in her dominions and it has been controversial, but it would be most regrettable if it happened here.
and to a follow on question .......
Lord Butler of Brockwell: If I can just endorse that, the leader of the second largest party might be having discussions with other political parties, but it is important that the Queen is not involved until the Queen can be sure that the person she invites to form a government has got the best possible chance of doing that. That is something which the outgoing Prime Minister has got a duty to advise her on.
I think that is pretty clear. GB has a duty to sit on his thumbs in No 10 until it becomes clear that DC can form a government (or otherwise).
Andrew
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 13:10
Didn't you read the Labour Manifesto 2010 (no, me neither :doh)? Tut tut .....
See 9:2 here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/10022401.htm
Andrew
No because I want interested enough in that topic , its been bubbling away for years :nenau
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 14:30
I have just been watching a recording, on the Beeb, of part of the meeting of the Justice Committee on 24 Feb 2010 on the topic "Constitutional processes following a general election". The document recording the minutes of that meeting is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/396/10022401.htm
Question 1 and the answer to that are:
" Q1 Chairman: Lord Butler, Lord Turnbull, welcome. We are very glad to have your help and advice and I am sure the whole country is going to be glad to have your help and advice. Lord Butler, you and I have been here before in February 1974, I remember. Are the procedures for the formation of a government following a general election in which there is no overall majority clear at least in the minds of those most closely involved? What is your experience?
Lord Butler of Brockwell: I think that they are clear and that they are simple. The convention is that the Prime Minister before the election remains Prime Minister until it is clear that he can no longer command the majority in Parliament, and that somebody else can. I think it may be the popular myth that the Prime Minister loses office if his party is defeated in a general election, but that is not the position. The Prime Minister remains Prime Minister until he cannot command a majority in Parliament and somebody else can."
Unless I am mistaken, your view coincides with the "popular myth" described by Lord Butler of Brockwell. If I am mistaken, perhaps you would explain what your view is, with some clarity.
During the part of the recording that I had the patience to sit through, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at Oxford University confirmed Lord Butler's statement. There was further confirmation and no dissent from other expert witnesses to the committee. These included: Professor Robert Hazell, Constitution Unit, UCL (who is one of the "experts" that I have seen interviewed by the Beeb), Sir Gus O'Donnell KCB, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service and others.
If your opinion differs from that of the foremost experts on constitutional processes, I think you need to explain why it does. I suspect that you are simply promoting the "popular myth" because it suits your particular political perspective.
Andrew
First of all I make it absolutely clear I live under whatever system is put in via the ballot box, support some parts moan about others. I would never waste my time perpetuating a myth.
Again Andrew, the devils in the detail and you've missed it ;) again.
I have never ever said that there is a legal , "constitutional" or statutory requirement for Brown to go, I believe that is in fact what the urban myth they are talking about is based on where folk believe there is and he has to. That's been widely discussed elsewhere since Friday. You must have seen and ignored that in your research ??
I have though, very clearly said imho he SHOULD go mainly on a moral basis and I am absolutely convinced there's nothing stopping him doing so other than his apparent desire to cling onto power. So far unnamed cabinet members are also telling he he can and should do that as he has so clearly lost.
That is where my opinion differs from the profs opinion as they say he should not go. Thats the way political debate is :nenau up down round and round. They would almost certainly approve of that on the basis if everyone's agreeing someone isn't thinking ;)
However the key word you seem to have overlooked is CONVENTION. Fyi convention is not a statutory requirement.
Brown no longer commands a majority in Parliament, far from it (Ive highlighted that bit for you) Cameron has the simple majority no doubt about that either and thus empowered to form a govt. What he lacks is a ruling majority.
The crux of my question to you as you have insisted Brown HAS to stay and has no choice is
Where is the statutory instrument that says that :nenau
Convention is not enforcible so opens the realistic can of worms of him moving immediately, staute is the only way he can be forced to stay.
You can see clearly in the quotations you've supplied, they dont even discuss that subject to the extent they back my argument up most strongly by use of the word Convention rather than law or statutory measures or instruments. So really the bulk of what you have posted whilst interesting is not entirely relevant....sorry :nenau
So please hurry up and answer that question :augie:augie
I sense you are backed into a corner and will not admit you are wrong :nenau
Typical politician posturing not answering :doh
Q wheres the statutory instrument?
A Earlier today I listened to an article ............
arrggghhhhhh :doh:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh:doh sounds like Brown on line.
I see you didn't bother explaining why the cabinet secretary is the best source of advice either ;)
So in summary, theres still not been anything positively demonstrated that Brown HAS to stay in office. Experts are trotting out and quoting convention (in this case 2 1/2 months ago :eek: ) but in these current extraordinary times surely we need to move quickly in such a clearly mandated situation? The longer Brown stays put the more catch up and less background his replacements have to overcome when they need to hit the ground running on topics such as the contribution we're been asked today to make to Greece.
The message is very clear. Labour lost decisively, the ballot boxes showed that, lets move on.
on a lighter note, top acceptance speech video..........http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100038733/gordon-brown-will-you-please-go-now/
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 14:41
Tbh I am getting sick of asking the question and getting evasive or irrelevant replies. Nothing to do with that i haven't got much spare time this evening so don't expect an any answers before tomorrow earliest ;)
And then I should have the long awaited sacred chalice of a link to the definitive statutory measure or instrument that tells me why Brown HAS to remain....................................or maybe I wont :augie
I have never ever said that there is a legal , "constitutional" or statutory requirement for Brown to go, I believe that is in fact what the urban myth they are talking about is based on where folk believe there is and he has to.
Good
So far unnamed cabinet members are also telling he he can and should do that as he has so clearly lost.
Cracking rumour. Unnamed, eh? :lol
That is where my opinion differs from the profs opinion as they say he should not go.
Indeed so, the constitutional experts do seem to say that he should stay until another government is formed.
If you read all of the Justice Committee minutes document I referred you to, you'll see Professor Bogdanor saying that in a hung parliament, it is for parliament itself to choose the government as the people have failed to do that unequivocally.
Brown no longer commands a majority in Parliament, far from it (Ive highlighted that bit for you) Cameron has the simple majority no doubt about that either and thus empowered to form a govt. What he lacks is a ruling majority.
Simple majority? I must have missed that. Didn't the Tories get LESS THAN half the seats?
Convention is not enforcible so opens the realistic can of worms of him moving immediately, staute is the only way he can be forced to stay.
There are lots of areas of life that are governed by tradition/convention/precedent and not by statute. Are you making a serious point here - or just arguing for the sake of it?
in these current extraordinary times surely we need to move quickly in such a clearly mandated situation?
Cameron's mob got less than 50% of the seats and only a little over a third of the actual vote. Mandated? You'll need to explain that one.
Andrew
lacroupade
10-05-2010, 15:13
Are you making a serious point here - or just arguing for the sake of it?
Andrew
Does a bear shit in the woods? :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 15:24
Does a bear shit in the woods? :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol no ;)
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 15:56
Andrew, no I am not arguing for the sake of it.
I suspect you are although the arguing isnt really about nothing its about avoiding answering the question I asked you , without having to stop posting which you would see as a weakness . Classic politicians type move.
Thats very very simple and straightforward and until you do your ducking , diving and switching decreases your credibility post by post whatever their superficial demonstration of political understanding suggests. Your comment on convention/tradition/precedent demonstrate all I have said above perfectly, you clearly don't understand some basic concepts on the subject.
so
For the final time, admit you were wrong or show me the statute that absolutely requires Brown to stay in office.
not advice, not hearsay, not a debate, not evolved convention. The statutory constitutional requirement that says he cant move out. You said it, you evidence it. Thats part of the basis of credibility in debate, being able to reference your opinions when challenged.
Look at the thread where Felix and I went at it, we both did there and it was a good un ;)
Until you do that and put up or shut up, theres not really much point in continuing this thread
I presume you will avoid doing so and I'll see this post dissected as you claim your "right of reply" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz , I really don't expect anything less from you.
I would also refer you to the quote at the bottom of my sig. Very apt and the delightful amusing irony is in the original poster.
au revoir x
The statutory constitutional requirement that says he cant move out. You said it, you evidence it.
The only person who has used the word statute or statutory in a post in this thread is you. I have made no claims about statutory requirements.
I said that Gordon Brown has a duty to remain as prime minister until a new one who is likely to be able to command a majority in the house is available. This is clearly not now, as negotiations between the Lib Dems and other parties are ongoing. It would seem that these may be further delayed, as the Lib Dems negotiators seem to have fallen at the first hurdle i.e. the Lib Dem MPs have sent the negotiating team back to the Tories for "clarification". :lol
I have cited as support references to statements made by the foremost experts on the British Constitution. You say that your opinion is different. Mmm .... I hope you'll forgive me for attaching rather more value to the opinions of the acknowledged experts in the field. :bow
Andrew
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 17:21
I will correct you immediately. You clearly stated he had no choice but to remain in office.
It doesn't take much to see or be aware that if it not a statutory requirement then he does actually have a choice , there is nothing to stop him leaving office. Convention is not enforceable. This government has lawfully but immorally displayed that on more than one occasion as and when it suited them. I have direct personal experience of that.
He cant have it both ways and nor can you perhaps whilst not realising the full consequence of your statement you definitely did say it
You have not demonstrated any evidence of the experts debating that deeper point nor linked to any evidence to support your assertions, that is why I said your transcript was interesting but not fully relevant :nenau
That was the basis of my question throughout following your assertion, so sadly the question remains unanswered , I haven't been shown where it is written in any formal format that he has to stay in office :nenaudebate and differences on other points remain interesting but additional to my question.
See, no debate, just putting you back on track with a quick precis.
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 17:43
In fact, on reflection I'm not arsed any more :D don't bother, that's my nicer side letting you off the hook, out of the corner you're backed into whichever metaphor suits best :nenau
It doesn't take much to see or be aware that if it not a statutory requirement then he does actually have a choice
I did not say that there was a statutory requirement. Justify your statement.
This government has lawfully but immorally displayed that on more than one occasion as and when it suited them.
Justify that this government (i.e. the one lead by GB) has displayed immoral behaviour. If you intend a reference to the invasion of Iraq then I may well agree with you, in principle - but the PM was not Gordon Brown at the time.
I haven't been shown where it is written in any formal format that he has to stay in office
Have you read the minutes of the Justice Committee that I referred you to?
Andrew
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 18:19
Stilll no direct answers eh only picking away :nenau
1st.........Im not sure if youre being daft or antagonistic. Have a look at the post again and consider the application of logic at best, extrapolation at worst. and stop doing partial quotes out of context.
2nd.....changing long est protocol? Police PNB negotiation and settlement or not 2007 to 2008.Very public and a perfect example. Surprised your research didnt pick up on it.
3rd.....read it? read loads if you want to make apoint from that make it specific I am not reading at your beck and call.
4th....and best........Early on you definitely said Gordon Brown had to remain as pm You later argued there was no flexibility in that and he (never mentioned a nominated replacement)had a constitutional duty and couldn't do anything about it......... LMFAO
Wrong
as I said he doesnt and eventually hasnt........
He's just resigned !!!!!!!
:jesterbg
Before you come back at this just read your posts you refer most of the time to Gordon Brown and not the labour administration, never considering in any depth other than one quick comment they could regroup in office with him gone.
As I said the devils in the detail :clap
End of chat
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 18:33
Even better still Andrew he has even conceded a point I was making when he said he has accepted the "judgement of the country" (or may have been people instead of country but the point remains the same)..........
errrr now wasnt that the voice aka the judgement of the people I mentioned several time that you were so disparaging about :confused: ;)
:clap:clap:clap:clap:clapGordys Gone cos he could:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap
iandouglas
10-05-2010, 18:41
well would you believe it last past the post and now dictating who get to win.
extreme-4x4
10-05-2010, 18:41
Well, decision day tomorrow and enforced career change I hope for some of those twats in westminster.
Without getting into heavy debate and no slagging each other off!!!! who are you going to vote for ?
I'm undecided, I just know it wont be Labour at any cost :augie
phewww.... good job we didn't get into a heavy debate.
Have a look at the post again and consider the application of logic at best, extrapolation at worst
If you make a statement, it is for you to prove that the conclusion follows.
AFAIK, there is no statute that prevents me sawing my left leg off at the knee - but it would be perverse to argue that I had any real choice in the matter. Gordon Brown has no real choice. Bimbling about the lack of a statutory requirement is a red herring and is just a waste of bandwidth.
He's just resigned[/COLOR][/SIZE] !!!!!!!
You obviously didn't listen to his statement or if you did, you didn't hear what he said.
Before you come back at this just read your posts you refer most of the time to Gordon Brown and not the labour administration, never considering in any depth other than one quick comment they could regroup in office with him gone.
Is that a question?
Andrew
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 18:47
Andrew, settle down, at least be gracious in clear obvious defeat dont do a Gordy :clap:clap:clap :rolleyes:
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 18:49
phewww.... good job we didn't get into a heavy debate.
:lol:lol:lol
lmao matey, I waited until after the polls closed before I tried any form of debate :thumb2
The reason I put that was so no one was particularly influenced bby what was on here and I wanted to see if the general trewnd on here was similar to the "outside world" :thumb2
well would you believe it last past the post and now dictating who get to win.
Nick Clegg may well get his come-uppance in due course. I understand that he has now asked for formal negotiations with the Labour Party (presumably because the Lib Dem MPs sent him away with a flea in his ear when he reported back about the Tory offer). I wonder how he is going to explain that to David Cameron.
Hmmm ......
Andrew
Andrew, settle down, at least be gracious in clear obvious defeat dont do a Gordy :clap:clap:clap :rolleyes:
The difference between resigning as PM (which is what you implied) and continuing as PM in a Lib/Lab coalition until the next Labour Party leadership election in the Autumn is not trivial.
Didn't you have another listen then?
Andrew
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 18:54
well would you believe it last past the post and now dictating who get to win.
Hi Ian, yes, moving on form previous debate, I am well worried. Labour reforming was one potential hiccup in Camerons master plan. My personal opinion is whilst we have to accept the libs as having a disproportionate amount of power because of circumstances I worry they may start to take the P a little bit :(
Mind you I dont know what you folks think but I was just watching the news there and they were saying if Libs go with Lab the Libs will lose quite a lot of the support they gained :nenau dont know where theyve got that from :confused:
extreme-4x4
10-05-2010, 18:56
so we still end up with an unelected prime minister ... what the fuc*
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 19:01
The difference between resigning as PM (which is what you implied) and continuing as PM in a Lib/Lab coalition until the next Labour Party leadership election in the Autumn is not trivial.
Didn't you have another listen then?
Andrew
Funnily enough I do actually have a good understanding of what's happening both on the surface and the constitutional undertones, quite probably as previously, better than yours.
Youre not remoteley gracious in defeat are you :nenau Bit of a Gordy :D
Move on.............................................
but please tell me if the quote on my sig is familiar :lol:lol:lol
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 19:04
so we still end up with an unelected prime minister ... what the fuc*
That'll be the case however Labour play it if Lib Dems join there gang :nenau
Can anyone remember the last time an unelected prime minister came to office and left with out winning an election? it has happened but Im not sure who and when :doh
I'll bet the reins have never been handed to a subsequent pm who carried on without election either if that happens :nenau
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 19:17
And if you need any further info....................
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i74621
:D:D
thought you may like this musical interlude during your debate :thumb2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYA8wHC5Ebg
Youre not remoteley gracious in defeat are you :nenau Bit of a Gordy :D
Do you do stand-up as well?
Andrew
what about the rest of the unelected labour party who have been governing us for the last few years, you know who I mean the cronies of our UNELECTED prime minister who have been put in powerful positions in the government without the peoples permission, are they going? If they are not elected then they should not be there, this is supposed to be a democracy, even if some members of the labour party would prefer it not be. bri
extreme-4x4
10-05-2010, 22:10
what about the rest of the unelected labour party who have been governing us for the last few years, you know who I mean the cronies of our UNELECTED prime minister who have been put in powerful positions in the government without the peoples permission, are they going? If they are not elected then they should not be there, this is supposed to be a democracy, even if some members of the labour party would prefer it not be. bri
exactly
what about the rest of the unelected labour party who have been governing us for the last few years, you know who I mean the cronies of our UNELECTED prime minister who have been put in powerful positions in the government without the peoples permission, are they going? If they are not elected then they should not be there, this is supposed to be a democracy, even if some members of the labour party would prefer it not be. bri
what about the rest of the unelected labour party who have been governing us for the last few years, you know who I mean the cronies of our UNELECTED prime minister who have been put in powerful positions in the government without the peoples permission, are they going? If they are not elected then they should not be there, this is supposed to be a democracy, even if some members of the labour party would prefer it not be. bri
according to news at 10 . gordon brown is preparing to leave number 10 as we speak
according to news at 10 . gordon brown is preparing to leave number 10 as we speak
gordon brown announced his resignation this afternoon according to sky news
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 22:39
what about the rest of the unelected labour party who have been governing us for the last few years, you know who I mean the cronies of our UNELECTED prime minister who have been put in powerful positions in the government without the peoples permission, are they going? If they are not elected then they should not be there, this is supposed to be a democracy, even if some members of the labour party would prefer it not be. bri
Youre bang on there :thumb2 Just watched a Labour politician justifying Browns unelected status to Major.
Bit of a lead balloon really when you remember Major took us to the polls ............and won :lol
Interstingly the last part of your comment reflects what theyre now saying across the channels in the media that if the Lib Lab pact occurs the praetorian old guard of labour will be able to hang on in there forming the coalition of losers :doh:doh:doh I despair
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 22:41
Do you do stand-up as well?
Andrew
Only to be counted, got loads of previous for that :naughty
If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.
Deleted account DD
10-05-2010, 22:58
If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.
:thumb2 cynical but possibly true :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
what about the rest of the unelected labour party who have been governing us for the last few years
It doesn't feel right to me either.
There is lots of precedent though. How about Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (aka Lord Palmerston)? He was a Tory prime minister!!
Andrew
gordon brown announced his resignation this afternoon according to sky news
He announced that he was going to resign in the future (unless there has been another statement since then that I haven't seen).
In the one that I saw on the Beeb, he said that he intended to remain as Prime Minister (if there was a Lib/Lab pact, I think he meant) until legislation on electoral reform had been introduced and measures put in place to combat the deficit. I also remember him saying that he did not intend to seek re-election as Leader of the Labour Party.
Did the one you saw/heard suggest that he intended (or had) to resign as PM? Has he been to the palace to see the queen?
Andrew
He announced that he was going to resign in the future (unless there has been another statement since then that I haven't seen).
In the one that I saw on the Beeb, he said that he intended to remain as Prime Minister (if there was a Lib/Lab pact, I think he meant) until legislation on electoral reform had been introduced and measures put in place to combat the deficit. I also remember him saying that he did not intend to seek re-election as Leader of the Labour Party.
Did the one you saw/heard suggest that he intended (or had) to resign as PM? Has he been to the palace to see the queen?
Andrew
i saw news at 10 and they said he had resigned and was preparing to leave number 10
This is the one I saw. The page definitely does not say that he has resigned as PM. There is a video of his statement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm
How weird .......
Andrew
This is the one I saw. The page definitely does not say that he has resigned as PM. There is a video of his statement.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm
How weird .......
Andrew
innit
lacroupade
11-05-2010, 10:45
Well what a bloody shambles.
Clegg finally shows what a two-faced plonker he is and why the Lib Dems should stick to picketing Greenham Common.....but it does everyone else a favour really because they are likely to get even less votes next time round.
Whatever people think, elections in this country are always a two-horse race - I mean who on earth thinks the Lib Dems could ever form a government for gods sake??? They are there so that people can vote for them to send the odd 'message' to the other two to sharpen their act up....so now you've had your laugh people and as a result this country stands on the brink of an economic and social trauma that will make the last couple of years look like a walk in the park. Two parties that don't have a clue, and a public sector waiting on the sidelines to torpedo the austerity measures that MUST be implemented.....
IMHO the Lib Dem/Labour alliance would be the best result for the Tories and the worst result for the country, so bring it on and lets see what happens shall we?
As Edwin Hawkins always used to sing...
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CNQXQKflJNA&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CNQXQKflJNA&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
well said paul, and the video is the best part of this thread imo, it's all a load of cobblers, (steptoe) :lol
IMHO the Lib Dem/Labour alliance would be the best result for the Tories and the worst result for the country, so bring it on and lets see what happens shall we?
In the present circumstance, the best result for either the Tories or Labour would be to spend the next parliament in opposition. In my view, the party that comes into power will take the blame for the measures that they have to introduce to sort the economy. If Mervyn King is right, they will be out of power for a generation.
Nick Clegg is, to coin a phrase, between a rock and a hard place. He dug a hole and jumped into it when he hijacked the process for replacing a government on Friday morning by pronouncing himself as king maker. Since then he has alienated the outgoing PM, the Labour party and seems now to have alienated Malcom Rifkind and probably many other Tories (including David Cameron), with his two-faced self-serving strategy for playing both ends against the middle. I think his 15 minutes of fame might just be coming to an end.
I cannot see how Clegg the Arrogant can get out of the hole he has dug without destroying the Lib Dems. They will be condemned by their left of centre supporters (the majority) if they form an alliance with the Tories. They will be condemned by their right of centre supporters, the entire Tory party and the Tory press if they form an alliance with the Labour party (and privately, by many Labour members and MPs too). If they ultimately don't form an alliance with anyone to form a new government and another election is called in the Autumn, everyone will condemn them for causing that and they'll get slaughtered at the ballot box.
My bet is that we will get an announcement and a conclusion to all this nonesense today - but I'm damned if I can guess who will be making it or what it will be. It seems to me that a hung parliament is the worst possible outcome of a general election and that the public must make a better job of making its mind up (one way or the other), the next time we go to the polls.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 12:00
Well what a bloody shambles.
Clegg finally shows what a two-faced plonker he is and why the Lib Dems should stick to picketing Greenham Common.....but it does everyone else a favour really because they are likely to get even less votes next time round.
IMHO the Lib Dem/Labour alliance would be the best result for the Tories and the worst result for the country, so bring it on and lets see what happens shall we?
<object width="480" height="385"></object>
Agree and I'll cough I was one of the suckers who was willing to give Clegg a chance. He has turned out to be a right twat.
If he fannys around in any kind of office as much as he is doing now we'll not get a thing sorted. I think it was on here I posted yesterday he's starting to take the Piss. I suspect clegg mania has had its day. One of the decent papers yesterday ran a good article and they said cleggs heart would say Labour, his head Tory (and explained why very well) which will he follow......hmmm
I agree with you if the alliance they're now talking about is cobbled together, all the losers in one big bucket, probably indirectly the best ever thing for Cameron and crew. They have always said Brown was ruthless, thats fine but to who's advantage :nenau
Sadly in the meantime we'll be getting ****ed over .......again.
the monster raving loony party are starting to make sense to me now :lol
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 14:18
i saw news at 10 and they said he had resigned and was preparing to leave number 10
They did :thumb2
and on the BBC a few moments ago they were discussing other parliamentary matters that were dominating the news and the comment was actually made that its not often the resignation of a prime minister takes second place in the news :lol
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 14:24
the monster raving loony party are starting to make sense to me now :lol
or maybe from the Labour perspective:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_tkcS_SvyMiQ/S-laUenSe5I/AAAAAAAABdg/1l7Gxk6N7WE/s912/melchett%20saying.jpg
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 14:26
Or failing that can I be foreign minister pls :bow
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_tkcS_SvyMiQ/S-la5RKkaPI/AAAAAAAABdk/ggrhZ5PcLsI/phantom.jpg
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 14:33
As Edwin Hawkins always used to sing...
<object width="480" height="385">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CNQXQKflJNA&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>
Going to age myself here, and if your honest you :D
I'm more familiar with the K-Tel singers cover that one ;):augie
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 16:43
Well what strange and fast moving times we live in.
The evening standard is reporting Brown is resign as PM without condition (as yesterday) tonight not even giving the poor dears time to get the new leader selection process rolling and no new parliament formed.
Yes its a press report but it has not been refuted by any source, other news agencies are reporting their sources handing out the same intelligence and its based on the fact Lib /Lab talks have stalled, which is hard info now in the public domain (source: sky, ITV & BBC).
Well well...............lets see if its true, they'll have him in the tower in an instant for daring to breach "constitutional" convention (and opinion that some slavishly follow without question). :naughty :D
I don't know whether you guys have seen it, but the Labour Party National Executive have decided that there is no deal to be done with the Lib Dems. Labour have withdrawn from any further talks. As far as the Lib Dems are concerned, they now have a deal with the Tories or nowt to look forward to.
I wish them well (honest).
Andrew
Well well...............lets see if its true, they'll have him in the tower in an instant for daring to breach "constitutional" convention (and opinion that some slavishly follow without question). :naughty :D
Yes, you do stand-up, don't you? :lol
Andrew
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 18:18
I don't know whether you guys have seen it, but the Labour Party National Executive have decided that there is no deal to be done with the Lib Dems. Labour have withdrawn from any further talks.
Andrew
As per the news that has been breaking since approx 4:30? (as in my last post)
Lots of informed discussion everywhere in the media and the general opinion is is he will go tonight irrespective of whether a new govt has "been arranged" as he has already effectively kicked off his resignation process.
Personally the cynic in me reckons now we're at this late date he will wait until Clegg & Cameron announce they are forming up because that signifies the very end of the road for him, last chance hotel just slammed the door after he played his ace card last night at its card table .
Lets see :naughty
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 18:22
On a slight aside did any one hear Adam Boultons faux pas on sky about half an hour ago ?.......
real mock the week have I got news for you stuff.
Whilst talking about new mps he actually said
"theres not much female talent about"
I'm sure he meant not much newly electrocuted political female talent but thats definitely not the way it came across. :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
Lots of informed discussion everywhere in the media and the general opinion is is he will go tonight irrespective of whether a new govt has "been arranged" as he has already effectively kicked off his resignation process.
Now that the Exec have kicked the Lib Dems into touch, the Tories are now the only option, so there is nothing really to stop him resigning. Cameroon could be in Number 10 by tomorrow.
Personally the cynic in me reckons now we're at this late date he will wait until Clegg & Cameron announce they are forming up
It is still possible that they might not be. Unless there has been some change during the day, reporting suggests that the Lib Dems are hopelessly split on a deal with the Conservatives. If there is no deal, the Tories will have to try governing with a minority.
Andrew
On a slight aside did any one hear Adam Boultons faux pas on sky about half an hour ago ?.......
Nope, I can't put up with the adverts.
Andrew
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 18:46
Nope, I can't put up with the adverts.
Andrew
oh it was worth it to see the usually word perfect Boulton trip :D:D:D:D:thumb2
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 19:31
Well thats it breaking news , hes gone, resigned and no sign of a new administration to hand the reigns to :nenau
I have to say Gordy looked more relaxed than in a long time.
lacroupade
11-05-2010, 19:51
Well thats it breaking news , hes gone, resigned and no sign of a new administration to hand the reigns to :nenau
I have to say Gordy looked more relaxed than in a long time.
jaw-dropping.....:augie
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 20:05
jaw-dropping.....:augie
Well he could so he did, very much his policy I feel. Seems to me he hung on for what he could get then when he realised he was sunk pissed off.
I must admit it made me feel nauseous when he was paying tribute to the troops. Not because they dont deserve it, they do and more, but because I got the impression they were singled out from everything else for a rambling mention because of a guilty conscience. Or would that be a subconscious fear it'll all catch up with him ?
I'll say what I said when BLiar went, I hope he can sleep with his conscience, I couldn't if I was him.
lacroupade
11-05-2010, 20:24
well at the end of the day I think you can count the number of politicians who are not self-serving in some way on the fingers of one hand - its just that the rest of us can't be bothered and being British we just roll over when someone says boo...I mean how else does someone like John Prescott rise to 'power'???
I'm trying hard to think and all I can come up with at the moment (whatever you think of their politics) is Skinner and Benn Snr.....
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 20:40
Id agree with you actually. Another one we had up here was the late Ashok Khumar. What a gentleman he was.
A slightly odd reflection of the high regard he was held in was when he died unexpectedly at home up here.
Generally when a politician dies theres lots of speculation and innuendo start flying around. I was not aware of any up here regarding him. Even in general conversation dodgy circumstances werent featured, only tributes.
Sadly like you say, theres not many of them.
Moving on slightly but still relevant, I know he's hardly impartial but have a look at the Littlejohn article p7 in the mail today,a brilliantly written summary. Dont often look at the mail, glad I did today :lol:lol:lol
One serious point he raises is with regards to the BBC and the trotting out of duty experts. On one panel he mentions ALL were proven labour men tut tut Beeb thats not going to lead to unbiased informing of the people is it :(
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 20:46
Just thinking about it, I reckon Hague is actually a good guy.
Met him some time ago when he spent a shift with us.
He ably demonstrated bottle and humour :thumb2
lacroupade
11-05-2010, 21:04
Just thinking about it, I reckon Hague is actually a good guy.
Met him some time ago when he spent a shift with us.
He ably demonstrated bottle and humour :thumb2
I'd buy that.:D
felixthelogchopper
11-05-2010, 21:07
well at the end of the day I think you can count the number of politicians who are not self-serving in some way on the fingers of one hand - its just that the rest of us can't be bothered and being British we just roll over when someone says boo...I mean how else does someone like John Prescott rise to 'power'???
I'm trying hard to think and all I can come up with at the moment (whatever you think of their politics) is Skinner and Benn Snr.....
I have to agree on Benn snr, and I would like to add John Smith to the mix
Deleted account DD
11-05-2010, 21:19
I have to agree on Benn snr, and I would like to add John Smith to the mix
I think John Smith was a decent bloke and whilst I hate to speak ill of the dead the one thing I would hold against him is the fact he was Browns guide and mentor in the early days ;) But I suppose we all make mistakes and other than that youre right, he was a decent sort :thumb2
Deleted account DD
12-05-2010, 11:21
Anyhow, new job for brown? he did suggest he wanted to step out of politics and do some charity work ;)
http://www.moneymad.org/Gillian_Duffy_Gordon_Brown_Bigot.jpg
lacroupade
12-05-2010, 11:40
So we've got Skinner, Benn , Kumar, Hague and Smith so far....and three of those are dead and one retired - what a reflection on British politics eh?
I might be tempted to add Clare Short.....she's had her moments but on the whole has been honourable and when push has turned to shove has stood up for what she believes in. But she too is out of it now..:nenau
Any more nominations?
So we've got Skinner, Benn , Kumar, Hague and Smith so far....and three of those are dead and one retired - what a reflection on British politics eh?
I might be tempted to add Clare Short.....she's had her moments but on the whole has been honourable and when push has turned to shove has stood up for what she believes in. But she too is out of it now..:nenau
Any more nominations?
bring back maggie !!!!! .... ( cyril smith too perhaps ? )
lacroupade
12-05-2010, 12:31
Maggie we'll leave to on side as that will cause a long boring flameout thread.
But Cyril f*cking Smith????????????????? He was a dirtbag.
http://rochdaleraw.blogspot.com/2009/10/cyril-smith-to-be-hung-at-rochdale-town.html
Maggie we'll leave to on side as that will cause a long boring flameout thread.
But Cyril f*cking Smith????????????????? He was a dirtbag.
http://rochdaleraw.blogspot.com/2009/10/cyril-smith-to-be-hung-at-rochdale-town.html
screaming lord sutch then ? :augie
Maggie we'll leave to on side as that will cause a long boring flameout thread.
But Cyril f*cking Smith????????????????? He was a dirtbag.
I've never met the guy and have only seen him on TV a handful of times, but I was quite getting to like Alan Johnson - shame, maybe, that he isn't standing for the Labour Party leadership. There is an old saying that - if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made. I don't know whether AJ fakes it - but he certainly gives a strong impression of being a straight-up citizen.
I don't think I'd disagree with the suggestion that Maggie should be on the list of non-self-serving politicians - much as I disagreed with her political philosophy.
I used to work for Norweb Electricity at their offices in Oldham before Sainsbury's bought the site and built a supermarket on it. (My desk was roundabout where the carrots are now). Cyril used to visit from time to time and had lunch with the Norweb Peak Area manager. Norweb had a special chair built for him, about twice as wide as a standard one. I never did come to know him, so have no real idea whether he was a dirtbag, but if he was, he was sure a bloody enormous one.
Andrew
isnt " honest politician " a oxymoron ? :augie
lacroupade
12-05-2010, 12:56
I've never met the guy and have only seen him on TV a handful of times, but I was quite getting to like Alan Johnson - shame, maybe, that he isn't standing for the Labour Party leadership. There is an old saying that - if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made. I don't know whether AJ fakes it - but he certainly gives a strong impression of being a straight-up citizen.
I don't think I'd disagree with the suggestion that Maggie should be on the list of non-self-serving politicians - much as I disagreed with her political philosophy.
I used to work for Norweb Electricity at their offices in Oldham before Sainsbury's bought the site and built a supermarket on it. (My desk was roundabout where the carrots are now). Cyril used to visit from time to time and had lunch with the Norweb Peak Area manager. Norweb had a special chair built for him, about twice as wide as a standard one. I never did come to know him, so have no real idea whether he was a dirtbag, but if he was, he was sure a bloody enormous one.
Andrew
Read the link Andrew - gives you a taste, not a very nice one though....especially the Private Eye stuff which he never sued over....
Deleted account DD
12-05-2010, 13:11
I havent read the link yet and I dont know much about Smith but I do know he was involved in some aggro in the 80s and there was a motion to strip his knighthood........ :augie
Deleted account DD
12-05-2010, 13:15
I dont think he'll make the list of nice guys with that account unchallenged :eek:
lacroupade
12-05-2010, 13:25
I dont think he'll make the list of nice guys with that account unchallenged :eek:
Oh! I was hoping you'd touch my testicles for me? :lol:lol:lol:lol:eek:
A man was coming home from work one day. He noticed that there was a lot more traffic than normal. As he got further up the road all of the traffic had come to a halt.
He saw a policeman coming towards his car, so he asked him what was wrong. The cop said, "We are in a crisis situation. Gordon Brown is in the road very upset. He does not have the £10 billion needed to fill his black hole, and everyone hates him. He is threatening to douse himself in petrol and start a fire."
The man asked the police officer exactly what he was doing there.
The bobby said, " I feel sorry for the Chancellor so I am going car to car asking for donations."
The man asked, "How much do you have so far?"
The bobby replied, "Well as of right now only 99 litres, but many people are still siphoning as we speak!"
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.