UK Politics Discussion

[Racheya]

Who better to run the country than someone with a successful business.

 

 

That is about the dumbest thing said in this thread so far.

 

Just looked at your profile though I didn't really need to to judge your age. I have been voting since the 1960's, so maybe I know a little bit more about it than you.

Or maybe you don't.

 

Pretty poor thing to judge someone by their age imo. People can have voted for 40 years and still not really understand what they're voting for.

 

I agree with Jaziek that just because they can run a business, doesn't mean they can run the country. If you have people with successful businesses running the country, what's going to be more important to them? The people or the business? I'm pretty sure I know.

[calcarb]

In my opinion someone who has run a successful business is much better qualified to run the country than someone who has only had the experience out of a book.

 

Why do you think that when you apply for a job they ask if you have experience. And why do you think that there are a lot of people with 'good' degrees who cannot find employment. Experience counts for a lot.

[PhaperPlane]

A bit disappointed with the Liberal Democrats that they didn't get over 100 seats. But, despite the fact they have the least amount of seats, they are quite powerful for the position they are in to decide who becomes the next Prime minister.

 

In my view, the coalition between Lib Dems with whoever won't work or it will be agreed but then it will fall apart. Which is why a re-election could be an outcome of this.

[calcarb]

A bit disappointed with the Liberal Democrats that they didn't get over 100 seats. But, despite the fact they have the least amount of seats, they are quite powerful for the position they are in to decide who becomes the next Prime minister.

 

In my view, the coalition between Lib Dems with whoever won't work or it will be agreed but then it will fall apart. Which is why a re-election could be an outcome of this.

 

Within the next 12 months probably. Maybe even as soon as November.

[Asmodeous4]

A bit disappointed with the Liberal Democrats that they didn't get over 100 seats. But, despite the fact they have the least amount of seats, they are quite powerful for the position they are in to decide who becomes the next Prime minister.

 

In my view, the coalition between Lib Dems with whoever won't work or it will be agreed but then it will fall apart. Which is why a re-election could be an outcome of this.

 

Within the next 12 months probably. Maybe even as soon as November.

 

I just hope to God we'll have electoral reform by then...

[magekillr]

Good posting from the New Yorker about proportional representation:

 

The United States, some other former British colonies (e.g., Canada and India), and certain Latin American republics that made the mistake of aping the Colossus of the North still labor under the disadvantages of this eighteenth-century political technology. Pretty much every other democracyincluding the whole of continental Europehas chosen one or another version of proportional representation, which was invented in the mid-nineteenth century. In recent decades, ex-colonies New Zealand and Australia have moved beyond FPTP. So has the mother country herself for elections to regional legislatures and the European parliamenteverything but the kingdom-wide House of Commons. And if the Liberal Democrats do well tonight, change might be on its way to Westminster as well.

 

...

 

More accurate representation is one of the goals of P.R., but so is responsiveness. And there are plenty of others. A partial list: boosting the legitimacy of democratic government in the eyes of people whose candidates or parties lose as well as those whose candidates win; increasing participation; opening the policy debate to more points of view; discouraging irresponsibility, special interest influence, and scorched-earth negative campaigning; fostering civility, coöperation, and consensus; and giving fair representation to all kinds of minorities, ideological and political as well as racial, ethnic, and gender, while still guaranteeing that the government represents a majority of voters.

 

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/05/all-worked-up-about-pr.html#ixzz0nIg2xsQ9

[Jaziek]

A bit disappointed with the Liberal Democrats that they didn't get over 100 seats. But, despite the fact they have the least amount of seats, they are quite powerful for the position they are in to decide who becomes the next Prime minister.

 

In my view, the coalition between Lib Dems with whoever won't work or it will be agreed but then it will fall apart. Which is why a re-election could be an outcome of this.

 

Within the next 12 months probably. Maybe even as soon as November.

 

I just hope to God we'll have electoral reform by then...

 

Fat chance. The referrendum will get shot down in flames by the murdoch controlled media. It'll never happen.

[dusqi]

A bit disappointed with the Liberal Democrats that they didn't get over 100 seats. But, despite the fact they have the least amount of seats, they are quite powerful for the position they are in to decide who becomes the next Prime minister.

 

In my view, the coalition between Lib Dems with whoever won't work or it will be agreed but then it will fall apart. Which is why a re-election could be an outcome of this.

 

Within the next 12 months probably. Maybe even as soon as November.

 

I just hope to God we'll have electoral reform by then...

 

Fat chance. The referrendum will get shot down in flames by the murdoch controlled media. It'll never happen.

 

 

I don't agree with this. The Cons are against it, but that's only 38% or so of the vote. Libs are obviously for it, as are the supporters of the smaller parties. Lab is mixed. But one thing this underestimates is the number of people who would like to vote for smaller parties like UKIP, the Greens, even the BNP - but don't do it because they're unlikely to win in their area. They know that they'll always have a tough job of winning anything and their vote will always be wasted unless PR comes in.

 

 

Edit: Then again, it wouldn't be the first time I was disappointed by the general population's susceptibility to Murdoch's media.

[Sy_Accursed]

In my opinion someone who has run a successful business is much better qualified to run the country than someone who has only had the experience out of a book.

 

Why do you think that when you apply for a job they ask if you have experience. And why do you think that there are a lot of people with 'good' degrees who cannot find employment. Experience counts for a lot.

 

But a country is NOT a business and running a country successfully is in no way similar to running a successful business, so it does not qualify you better at all.

[Will H]

Harping back to proportional representation. If we adopted that system we would then have only the career politicians would get into power which, in my opinion would mean they rule the country for their own gain and not for the good of the people.

 

If you look at the background of some of the Conservative members of Parliament you will see that they are successful business men and who better to run the country than someone with a successful business.

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

But as this picture posted earlier in the thread shows:

 

 

Only Conservatve and Labour can really get in power as it is, when other parties may have people who are much more qualified. I think the benefits of Pr far outweigh the negatives.

 

Ah, but what about cabinet seats? If the Tories are going to make a deal with the Lib Dems, the only way I can imagine would be to give one or two cabinet seats to the Lib Dems. If we get Vince Cable as Chancellor and a Tory government, we get the best of both worlds. The Lib Dems don't have very strong policies elsewhere, but they do have a good potential Chancellor.

[1_man_army]

I doubt that they'll even consider offering Cable the Chancellorship. That (I would think ) is a complete non-starter since that role virtually dictates what you can do in every other department of government.

[Sam]

In an ideal world it would be great, but it's just not a thing I see happening.

[baron8000]

In my opinion someone who has run a successful business is much better qualified to run the country than someone who has only had the experience out of a book.

 

Why do you think that when you apply for a job they ask if you have experience. And why do you think that there are a lot of people with 'good' degrees who cannot find employment. Experience counts for a lot.

 

Two problems here.

 

1) Running the country is not like running a business, whilst business acumen would be helpful, its one of many factors to running an entire nation, even if you are given a purely financial station. Understanding what a banana is does not qualify you to run a supermarket.

 

2) If we accept that experience is at least still important (and I won't disagree there) then I fail to see how that translates to a tory vote. The labour government have actual practical experience, and whilst the tory idiot was failing to become a journalist, Lib dem Vince Cable was working as chief economist at Shell, and I'm pretty sure that Shell only picks the best to manage its finances.

 

Also, if you have been voting since the 60's and are (according to your profile) currently in Lancashire, how have you not seen the impact of the Thatcher government up north?

 

Finally, god damn there is a lot of misunderstanding about the EU in this thread.

[BloodAngel]

Well now the UK has no Prime Minster at all! Gordon Brown has finally realised he's not the man for the job and resigned as the leader of the Labour Party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673526.stm. Personally I hope Ed Milliband replaces him as he seems like one of the best guys Labour has.

 

On another note, it seems to be becoming increasingly likely that the Liberal Democrats are going to form a coalition with the Conservatives and the BBC seem to think we'll know if the Conservatives with be governing the country in the next few hours.

[Sam]

I think that was going to happen sooner or later.

[Will H]

Well now the UK has no Prime Minster at all! Gordon Brown has finally realised he's not the man for the job and resigned as the leader of the Labour Party http://news.bbc.co.u...10/8673526.stm. Personally I hope Ed Milliband replaces him as he seems like one of the best guys Labour has.

 

On another note, it seems to be becoming increasingly likely that the Liberal Democrats are going to form a coalition with the Conservatives and the BBC seem to think we'll know if the Conservatives with be governing the country in the next few hours.

Hurrah for getting rid of Brown, but it was going to happen anyway.

 

 

I really doubt we'll know what the government's going to be made of today or tomorrow. Yes, Con-Lib coalition talks are getting to advanced stages now, but the Lib Dems still need to decide among themselves whether they want to sidle up with a party that's so ideologically different as opposed to a less popular party that's more ideologically similar. It's a bit of a 'stick or twist' dilemma for them, and it's probably going to take a while yet.

[Asmodeous4]

Well now the UK has no Prime Minster at all! Gordon Brown has finally realised he's not the man for the job and resigned as the leader of the Labour Party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673526.stm. Personally I hope Ed Milliband replaces him as he seems like one of the best guys Labour has.

 

On another note, it seems to be becoming increasingly likely that the Liberal Democrats are going to form a coalition with the Conservatives and the BBC seem to think we'll know if the Conservatives with be governing the country in the next few hours.

 

Erm, not quite. Gordon Brown will resign as PM before the next Labour Party Conference, and if he is in a Lib-Lab coalition he will put in an electoral reform referendum instantly. This actually means it is more likely there will be a Lib-Lab coalition, as the Liberal's are offered two massive incentives, the electoral reform they've been campaigning for for ever, and the removal of Gordon Brown. For the Conservatives this greatly reduces their chances of a Con-Lab coalition, which in my opinion were small already. If you want it more in detail, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm .

But he hasn't already resigned despite what Jolteon said, and the Liberals have even insinuated that talks are not going well with the Tories, whilst meeting in private with senior Labour figures.

Gordon Brown HAS NOT RESIGNED YET.

[assassin_696]

Well now the UK has no Prime Minster at all! Gordon Brown has finally realised he's not the man for the job and resigned as the leader of the Labour Party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673526.stm. Personally I hope Ed Milliband replaces him as he seems like one of the best guys Labour has.

 

Gordon Brown is still the Prime Minister, he's stepping down as the leader of his party when they elect a new leader, which won't be for a few months yet. He's still serving his country whilst the talks continue though. He's a good man and is doing the right thing, unforunately he's just an ineffective politican.

[Danqazmlp]

Well now the UK has no Prime Minster at all! Gordon Brown has finally realised he's not the man for the job and resigned as the leader of the Labour Party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673526.stm. Personally I hope Ed Milliband replaces him as he seems like one of the best guys Labour has.

 

Gordon Brown is still the Prime Minister, he's stepping down as the leader of his party when they elect a new leader, which won't be for a few months yet. He's still serving his country whilst the talks continue though. He's a good man and is doing the right thing, unforunately he's just an ineffective politican.

 

Your right. He cannot just resign. That would put the Gov. in even more turmoil. He is in charge of the labour party until they elect a new leader within themselves. It is a good step in increasing the chances of a Lib-Lab coalition. If Clegg has any sense, he will not go with the conservatives. They are almost complete opposites in what they want.

[assassin_696]

Many of the labour party are just as staunchly opposed to PR as the tories though, it's only now that it's become convenient that they've got this sudden interest in it. And even if there was a lib-lab coalition, they'd still lack a majority which would mean a probable coalition with lots of other fringe parties that will have their own agendas. In my opinion it would seem like such a bodge job that I can't see how they can really justify it. I think some form of conservative government, whether a minority one or some kind of coalition is the only justifiable government at the moment since they got more seats and votes than any other party.

 

It would seem a little two-faced of the lib-dems to side up with the labour party to try and get PR, when PR in an overall sense might have given the tories a proper government now (although I don't know the exact stats of this). I mean obviously I'm biased because I want a conservative government, but another labour government would be a bit of a joke really when their opposition got more votes and seats than them.

[Sam]

You have to be English, it's annoyingly complex.

[Sy_Accursed]

You say that like english people understand it. When to be truely honest like 20 - 30% just vote for the party their parents liked before the war.

Like 40% just follow what the crud papers hu lie say

then of the remaining 30 - 40% like half have a fairly ok idea of whats going on and maybe like 5% total truely understand it.

[magekillr]

Well now the UK has no Prime Minster at all! Gordon Brown has finally realised he's not the man for the job and resigned as the leader of the Labour Party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673526.stm. Personally I hope Ed Milliband replaces him as he seems like one of the best guys Labour has.

 

On another note, it seems to be becoming increasingly likely that the Liberal Democrats are going to form a coalition with the Conservatives and the BBC seem to think we'll know if the Conservatives with be governing the country in the next few hours.

 

I'm rooting for Ed Balls, Ed Miliband or (in a dream) Jon Cruddas. David Miliband (Ed's brother), who appears to be emerging as the favorite, is a Blairite tool and must be stopped.

[magekillr]

Andrew Sullivan isn't feeling good:

 

One feels the stomach lurch a little if one remains a British conservative. From the heady days of the 1980s and even 1990s - eighteen years of continuous Tory rule - we have now had thirteen years of Labour, three elections in which the ghost of Thatcherism was revived with ever decreasing effect, then a major rebranding and personable, decent new leader with sane, centrist policies ... the end result is 36 percent. And that barely more than a third of the vote - and no seats in Scotland - comes after one of the worst recessions in memory, and one of the least agreeable prime ministers in modern times.

 

Or to put it another way: 63 percent of Britons did not want a Tory government after 13 years of Labour. That's the logic behind Gordon Brown's maneuver today. He's gambling that on most issues, the Liberal Democrats are actually closer to Blairite liberalism than Cameroonian conservatism. Get rid of the Brown stigma and the natural alliance has time to form. There's more as well of course: judging whether getting into government right now would in fact be fatal to any party, given the country's finances; personal pique; and the entire question of electoral reform.

 

But the latter is the real issue now. The Liberals fumbled their last chance for electoral reform in the 1970s. One senses they cannot fail to use their leverage for it now. If the result of the bargaining after this election is proportional representation in one form or another, there will never be a majority Conservative government in Britain again. There won't be a Labour majority government either, but given the deep left-liberal majority in Britain, coalition politics will move Britain indelibly leftward. Remember that Thatcher never won anything close to a majority of the popular vote - she kept winning because the left split and the electoral system allowed her to divide and rule. But what happens when the Tories can only divide and compromise?

 

More here:

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/a-death-blow-to-the-tory-party.html

[Assume Nothing]

Well now the UK has no Prime Minster at all! Gordon Brown has finally realised he's not the man for the job and resigned as the leader of the Labour Party http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8673526.stm. Personally I hope Ed Milliband replaces him as he seems like one of the best guys Labour has.

 

Gordon Brown is still the Prime Minister, he's stepping down as the leader of his party when they elect a new leader, which won't be for a few months yet. He's still serving his country whilst the talks continue though. He's a good man and is doing the right thing, unforunately he's just an ineffective politican.

 

Your right. He cannot just resign. That would put the Gov. in even more turmoil. He is in charge of the labour party until they elect a new leader within themselves. It is a good step in increasing the chances of a Lib-Lab coalition. If Clegg has any sense, he will not go with the conservatives. They are almost complete opposites in what they want.

 

But you have to also think - Lib-Lab still doesn't form a majority, if Conservatives decide to vote against any laws they try to pass, they're pretty much screwed.