Tomorrow

[lacroupade]

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.....

 

[briggie]

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 .

 

[Deleted account DD]

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

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 and there he was relying on his good time "friends" :naughty

 

[ocelot]

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.......

 

[andrewk]

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]

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]

tommorrow

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 of nottingham.
id.

 

[andrewk]

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

 

[andrewk]

OR ARE WE BEING STUFFED AGAIN.
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]

oops sorry, double posted somehow

 

[Deleted account DD]

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.

 

[andrewk]

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]

I reckon old Brown nose has got the hump 'cause no-one wants to be in his gang
He's now stripping out no.10 and melting down the silver:lol
He'll be done by tea time tomorrow you watch
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]

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]

I reckon old Brown nose has got the hump 'cause no-one wants to be in his gang
He's now stripping out no.10 and melting down the silver:lol
He'll be done by tea time tomorrow you watch
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?

 

[andrewk]

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]

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]

: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

 

[Deleted account DD]

That and folding the sheets in half:lol
I'll be off now and let you two work things out

I'm all worked out ta :thumb2

 

[briggie]

i say paul ( bat 21 ) should start his own party