Red Ivor told me..........

[Gwylan]

Made me chuckle amongst the het up debating on this thread!

Thought Acker's joker comment was even funnier though.


Personally, I think that Cameron and Clegg will stitch up a deal and we will have a Ory/LibDem government. Not sure it will last too long though and it will certainly put Cameron and Clegg in trouble with their own parties, but I reckon that's what they'll get.

Labour must be loving this, they can calmly get on with voting a new leader, watch the coalition implode within a couple of years and probably pick up a few more votes next time round.

 

[BLOCK F]

Thought Acker's joker comment was even funnier though.


Personally, I think that Cameron and Clegg will stitch up a deal and we will have a Ory/LibDem government. Not sure it will last too long though and it will certainly put Cameron and Clegg in trouble with their own parties, but I reckon that's what they'll get.

Labour must be loving this, they can calmly get on with voting a new leader, watch the coalition implode within a couple of years and probably pick up a few more votes next time round.

Well Gwylan,we can only hope that a Tory/Libdem pact has enough time to sort out the shambles that Labour have left behind(again!) before your bunch of financially illiterate dreamers get back in to f--k things up once more!!

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Thought Acker's joker comment was even funnier though.


Personally, I think that Cameron and Clegg will stitch up a deal and we will have a Ory/LibDem government. Not sure it will last too long though and it will certainly put Cameron and Clegg in trouble with their own parties, but I reckon that's what they'll get.

Labour must be loving this, they can calmly get on with voting a new leader, watch the coalition implode within a couple of years and probably pick up a few more votes next time round.

What and get up to 260 seats

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

The thing is that a liblab pact will also need the support of the SDLP,SNP and PC in order to govern. That's hugely unstable and from the point of view of the LD's will give them less clout than they would have under the tories as Labour have to appease more than just one party.

Brown as an unelected PM was probably ok as we all knew that he would take over from Blair when the last election was held. Not nearly the same situation here when there will be a genuine battle for the leadership that will inevetiably cause some ruction within the party.

Clegg has talked about fixing pur broken politics but he will be blamed for keeping it in disrepute.

 

[Gwylan]

Well Gwylan,we can only hope that a Tory/Libdem pact has enough time to sort out the shambles that Labour have left behind(again!) before your bunch of financially illiterate dreamers get back in to f--k things up once more!!

I think you've mixed me up with someone else - I'm no Labour supporter; not this time, not last time, nor the time before.

I was just pointing that this was the best possible result for the Labour party. If they'd won, they'd have to implement public sector cuts that would alienate their supporters; if the Tories had enough seats for a big majority, I suspect they'd have won at least a second term (there's only been one one-term government since the war) and a coalition with LibDems would either mean keeping on Brown or, once again, having a PM who hadn't faced an election.

 

[Barnham Seagull]

No they wouldn't, they would have had the largest single party vote but this would have been way under 50%, not a win!



That is an opinion not a FACT



You could have P R which excludes any party that gets less than 10% of the vote? Not sure this is a good idea but it would keep the extremists out.



I'm sorry my young chum, the 'consevatives' (sic) don't have a mandate to govern because they got less than 50% of the vote.



They didn't win, they got less than 50% of the vote and until any deals are done between whatever parties, Gordon Brown is still the prime minister.
If you don't like it, I suggest you vote for a party that reflects your views.

50% of the vote?

Who the hell as ever got 50% of the vote?

50% of the seats? Is that what you mean?

As mentioned if Labour had a 36% level of support they would have had a majority.

 

[BLOCK F]

I think you've mixed me up with someone else - I'm no Labour supporter; not this time, not last time, nor the time before.

I was just pointing that this was the best possible result for the Labour party. If they'd won, they'd have to implement public sector cuts that would alienate their supporters; if the Tories had enough seats for a big majority, I suspect they'd have won at least a second term (there's only been one one-term government since the war) and a coalition with LibDems would either mean keeping on Brown or, once again, having a PM who hadn't faced an election.

Gwylan ,my humble apologies for mixing you up with the 'dreamers'

 

[Stumpy Tim]

They didn't win, they got less than 50% of the vote and until any deals are done between whatever parties, Gordon Brown is still the prime minister.
If you don't like it, I suggest you vote for a party that reflects your views.

I didn't vote because I don't live in the country and I don't think I should have a vote on other peoples lives where I'm not affected. I would have voted Lib Dem or Labour though. I just know that morally more people voted Tory & hence they should lead the government. Staying as PM because it's constitutionally right doesn't make it morally right

 

[Simster]

Gwylan ,my humble apologies for mixing you up with the 'dreamers'

No, no you haven't. Gwylan voted GREEN, I believe.

 

[Gwylan]

No, no you haven't. Gwylan voted GREEN, I believe.

I did indeed.

I think I'm definitely one of the dreamers ... but certainly not a Labour one.

 

[ROSM]

I just love the informed debate on NSC. My view is if you dont know the rules, cant name 3 of the policies of the party you vote for and don't know the name of the candidate you wish to vote for before seeing the ballot paper, you shouldn't be allowed to vote

For my money I expect a minority Tory government by wednesday morning with the Libdems agreeing a supply and confidence arrangement where they will back where they agree and dont support a no confidence vote for an agreed period. Clegg will agree to the review of electoral reform (rather than a referendum) in return for other policies being watered down and a mythical 'political' reform approach.

But what this NSC debate has shown is that first past the post has it's flaws (most votes/seats doesn't give you a winner) whilst a party getting 23 % of the vote gets less than 10% of the seats. For those saying that the FPtP scheme favours labour - thats as much down to how labour fight elections. In the late 70s and early 80s it was believed it favoured the Tories. Also for those saying that hung parliaments are automatically bad are probably basing their view on just how bad we are at it due to lack of practice.

Finally for those who believe and respond to the media diatribe about a squatter in downing street - the alternative would have been an interim (like George Osborne) attending the EU summit over the weekend with neither experience or a mandate to be there. At least the Tories and Lib Dems have started to negotiate first which given the limited constitutional direction we have, need not have been the case

 

[KZNSeagull]

I didn't vote because I don't live in the country and I don't think I should have a vote on other peoples lives where I'm not affected. I would have voted Lib Dem or Labour though. I just know that morally more people voted Tory & hence they should lead the government. Staying as PM because it's constitutionally right doesn't make it morally right

Agreed.

What I find interesting is that there is this automatic perception by non-Tories that because they did not get a majority, they shouldn't be allowed to govern. Why? Does everyone else like the Labour Party really even though they did not vote for them? What this election showed is that the Labour Party are even more unpopular than the Tories, so my view is that they have even less right to govern.

If there is a 3 way vote to elect the captain of the local footie team, doesn't the one who wins most votes end up as captain, or do the other 2 losers gang up on him and share the captaincy? It's bizarre.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Miliband or Johnson for Prime Minister, Clegg for Deputy Prime Minister.

Brown for the role of "great statesman, doing the decent thing, in the national interest".

Sorry Lord B you're looking at this through the eyes of a "Phony Tony Croney".

Although I must admit AJ has been making very sweet music towards the LD's, at a time when a lot of Labour were slagging them.

DC I think is still up for a Con-LD arrangement, but I do think a lot of the Tory trads will find it difficult to accept. Most of them want to have another election straight off, I suppose Lord Ashcroft will bail them out again.

 

[Curious Orange]

I don't see why people think that the Lib Dems can't work with the Conservatives - they do have a fair bit in common in terms of policy...

Anyway, Ken Clarke made a very good point the other day - (and I paraphrase) that if the parties can't co-operate in the current situation then you might as well forget about proportional representation.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Agreed.

What I find interesting is that there is this automatic perception by non-Tories that because they did not get a majority, they shouldn't be allowed to govern. Why? Does everyone else like the Labour Party really even though they did not vote for them? What this election showed is that the Labour Party are even more unpopular than the Tories, so my view is that they have even less right to govern.

If there is a 3 way vote to elect the captain of the local footie team, doesn't the one who wins most votes end up as captain, or do the other 2 losers gang up on him and share the captaincy? It's bizarre.

No they go off and play football for another team if they can't stomach him in the dressing-room.

That does happen in politics but rarely, most people stick with an ideology and suffer the personal differences.

 

[Danny-Boy]

I don't see why people think that the Lib Dems can't work with the Conservatives - they do have a fair bit in common in terms of policy...

Anyway, Ken Clarke made a very good point the other day - (and I paraphrase) that if the parties can't co-operate in the current situation then you might as well forget about proportional representation.

That's a valid point, but there are different systems on offer. This was discussed on R5 phone-in this morning, and I would go for the ASV or whatever it's called.

In other words you select a first and then a second choice for your local MP, that way the winner always gets more than 50% of the votes cast. I think DC himself was elected the same way.

Pure PR loses the link of the people with a specific MP rep. Look at the MEP system.

 

[fire&skill]

Brown could not have made it easier for Cameron when he came out with the 'bigot' statement. The Tories should be very worried that they couldn't even get the seats they needed after that uber-gaffe.

 

[Danny-Boy]

I just love the informed debate on NSC. My view is if you dont know the rules, cant name 3 of the policies of the party you vote for and don't know the name of the candidate you wish to vote for before seeing the ballot paper, you shouldn't be allowed to vote

For my money I expect a minority Tory government by wednesday morning with the Libdems agreeing a supply and confidence arrangement where they will back where they agree and dont support a no confidence vote for an agreed period. Clegg will agree to the review of electoral reform (rather than a referendum) in return for other policies being watered down and a mythical 'political' reform approach.

But what this NSC debate has shown is that first past the post has it's flaws (most votes/seats doesn't give you a winner) whilst a party getting 23 % of the vote gets less than 10% of the seats. For those saying that the FPtP scheme favours labour - thats as much down to how labour fight elections. In the late 70s and early 80s it was believed it favoured the Tories. Also for those saying that hung parliaments are automatically bad are probably basing their view on just how bad we are at it due to lack of practice.

Finally for those who believe and respond to the media diatribe about a squatter in downing street - the alternative would have been an interim (like George Osborne) attending the EU summit over the weekend with neither experience or a mandate to be there. At least the Tories and Lib Dems have started to negotiate first which given the limited constitutional direction we have, need not have been the case

Well said.

 

[pork pie]

Well Gwylan,we can only hope that a Tory/Libdem pact has enough time to sort out the shambles that Labour have left behind(again!) before your bunch of financially illiterate dreamers get back in to f--k things up once more!!

 

[Danny-Boy]

I think you've mixed me up with someone else - I'm no Labour supporter; not this time, not last time, nor the time before.

I was just pointing that this was the best possible result for the Labour party. If they'd won, they'd have to implement public sector cuts that would alienate their supporters; if the Tories had enough seats for a big majority, I suspect they'd have won at least a second term (there's only been one one-term government since the war) and a coalition with LibDems would either mean keeping on Brown or, once again, having a PM who hadn't faced an election.

Funnily enough it was also IMHO the best result for the LDs. If they had gone on being hyped up they would have taken more support from Labour and probably ended up giving enough seats to the Tories to form a majority on their own, or with the Ulster Unionists.

But there were too many policies which I think the Party hadn't thought through enough, ,like the immigration "Amnesty". As someone pointed out, how could you ask an illegal to "prove" that he had been in the country for at least 10 years when his/her whole lifestyle was not to figure in official records?