# General Election



## JBODEN

Sorry for bringing up the subject (Ugh) but I need an explanation.
First the Gordons were running the Country now it looks like the Camerons will be in power.
WHAT IS IT WITH THESE SCOTS!


----------



## jojo

JBODEN said:


> Sorry for bringing up the subject (Ugh) but I need an explanation.
> First the Gordons were running the Country now it looks like the Camerons will be in power.
> WHAT IS IT WITH THESE SCOTS!


Looks like they're both gonna be playing at being the leader! FFS, the rules need changing

Jo xxxx


----------



## JBODEN

jojo said:


> Looks like they're both gonna be playing at being the leader! FFS, the rules need changing
> 
> Jo xxxx


Unforunately there is no ideal solution. I wouldn't mind the Monster Raving Looney Party getting into power, could they really make a bigger mess?


----------



## jojo

I'm not a political animal, but I'm at a loss as to why the BBC obviously spent so much money on their TV set for this election. Everytime I've switched on there has been a technical fault, the whole thing is majorly confusing (evenmore so that it should be). I've turned over to watch it on another channel. Far easier to understand

Jo xxx


----------



## Caz.I

JBODEN said:


> Sorry for bringing up the subject (Ugh) but I need an explanation.
> First the Gordons were running the Country now it looks like the Camerons will be in power.
> WHAT IS IT WITH THESE SCOTS!


Cameron - Scottish? The old Etonian?  
Anyway, looking at the results this morning the really worrying thing surely is that no one is in charge! 

Did anyone on the forum vote I wonder? I didnt since I havent lived there for 7 years and the last place I lived in the UK (where I suppose I would be entitled to vote) I have no connection with anymore so it seemed a bit pointless. But I know others here still have ties there...


----------



## JBODEN

Caz.I said:


> ... the really worrying thing surely is that no one is in charge!


Not true! Obviously you aint a fan of Yes Minister
EVERYONE knows that the Civil Servants run the Country
PS There's your solution JoJo. Let's get Sir Humphrey to run the Country.


----------



## Caz.I

JBODEN said:


> Not true! Obviously you aint a fan of Yes Minister
> EVERYONE knows that the Civil Servants run the Country
> PS There's your solution JoJo. Let's get Sir Humphrey to run the Country.


Well they certainly seemed to be the ones deciding who was allowed to vote last night!


----------



## gus-lopez

Caz.I said:


> Well they certainly seemed to be the ones deciding who was allowed to vote last night!


It's getting like zimbabwe.


----------



## Tallulah

I hope Mary is OK - she was going to be pulling an all nighter wasn't she?

Maybe she's finally slumped in her armchair, empty expresso cups and Pro-Plus packets scattered at her feet. 

Hopefully when she wakes up, she'll give us her thoughts.:ranger:

xxx


----------



## mrypg9

Tallulah said:


> I hope Mary is OK - she was going to be pulling an all nighter wasn't she?
> 
> Maybe she's finally slumped in her armchair, empty expresso cups and Pro-Plus packets scattered at her feet.
> 
> Hopefully when she wakes up, she'll give us her thoughts.:ranger:
> 
> xxx


'Mornin' all!!
My as yet unfocused thoughts:

The Tories have a majority of the public vote and seats in the Commons but have 'lost' in the sense that they did not achieve the breakthrough they confidently expected.
Labour has failed to gain a majority of the popular vote and lost its majority in the Commons but has 'won' in the sense that they did not get the thrashing that was predicted. 
No Party has won a fourth term in over two hundred years so viewed from that perspective Labour has done remarkably well.
I'm pleased to see extremists of the Left (Respect) and the right (BNP) soundly thrashed. Three cheers for British decency!
Constitutionally Gordon Brown has the right to try to form a Government. Clegg has honoured his statement that the Party with the largest share of the vote and seats in the Commons should try to form a Government but -crucially -qualified it with the caveat 'in the national interest'.
I cannot see Cameron taking the poisoned chalice of minority Government. He would be a prisoner of the other Parties.
It would be difficult to see how a Lib/Con coalition could provide stability - the Lib Dems won't support Tory economic plans and the Tories are against PR.
As there is a 2/3 majority of the popular vote against the Tories as well as a small majority in the Commons there could be a strong case for an anti-Tory coalition or agreement.
My own preference would be for Brown to continue as PM as I think Tory plans for sharp and immediate cuts would lead to a double-dip recession but I do not support the Labour preference for a dominant public sector in the economy.
I support a flourishing private enterprise economy with fair taxation leading to redistribution to those in geneuine need. I support the franchising of many public services to private enterprise, under strict contractual conditions. 
No one Party currently suits me!!!!!
But one thing at least we can thank Gordon Brown for: he kept us out of the euro.
I predict a Labour-led Government with an election within a year.
But who knows? 
The media want instant decisions on what will happen. I think we'd prefer a period of calm reflection.
And now .....COFFEE!!!


----------



## gus-lopez

Tallulah said:


> I hope Mary is OK - she was going to be pulling an all nighter wasn't she?
> 
> Maybe she's finally slumped in her armchair, empty expresso cups and Pro-Plus packets scattered at her feet.
> 
> Hopefully when she wakes up, she'll give us her thoughts.:ranger:
> 
> xxx


I haven't heard that expression for years ! Yes I was just thinking that she was dead to the world still ! :lol:


----------



## mrypg9

gus-lopez said:


> I haven't heard that expression for years ! Yes I was just thinking that she was dead to the world still ! :lol:


In many respects I am, Gus! Thank God there is no webcam facility on this site, you would not want to go there
I'm still in my bathrobe lying in bed, laptop to hand, listening to/watching the BBC 
and wishing that all this fevered speculation from commentators and 'pundits' would cease.
A period of calm, sober reflection is needed methinks but with 24 hour rolling news will we get it???
Someone said that if there had been 24 hour rolling news at the time of the Cuban missile crisis we'd have been toast as Kennedy would have been under such media pressure that he would have been rushed into hasty and possibly fatal decisions.


----------



## thrax

I agree with practically everything Mary says. However, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition is unlikely to succeed either since they would not have a majority, the Tories et al still having the muscle to stop anything going through parliament. That being the case, a minority coalition still has problems constitutionally and would probably lead to another election within a few months at most. Perhaps then, everyone who turned out to vote will actually get a vote, unlike some of the nonsense seen last night. I'm not sure but I think only one seat was so marginal that those who were turned away might have made a difference. Running out of ballot forms because they didn't expect such a high turn out is unforgivable and then there is a constitutional and legal problem of those returning officers who allowed voting to go on past ten o'clock and those who firmly shut the doors on the 'grounds' that voting beyond the witching hour is illegal. Still, we as a nation have always been good at stand-up comedy...


----------



## mrypg9

thrax said:


> I agree with practically everything Mary says. However, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition is unlikely to succeed either since they would not have a majority, the Tories et al still having the muscle to stop anything going through parliament. That being the case, a minority coalition still has problems constitutionally and would probably lead to another election within a few months at most. Perhaps then, everyone who turned out to vote will actually get a vote, unlike some of the nonsense seen last night. I'm not sure but I think only one seat was so marginal that those who were turned away might have made a difference. Running out of ballot forms because they didn't expect such a high turn out is unforgivable and then there is a constitutional and legal problem of those returning officers who allowed voting to go on past ten o'clock and those who firmly shut the doors on the 'grounds' that voting beyond the witching hour is illegal. Still, we as a nation have always been good at stand-up comedy...


And I agree with you!! (A comment not likely to be heard much around political circles!) It was disgraceful that people were disenfranchised. Maybe a legal challenge in some places?
I would put money on there being another election within a year. You're right, a Lib/Lab coalition would be hard to maintain but of the four outcomes 

1) Labour forms a minority goverrnment - not on or right.
2) Tories form a minority government - poisoned chalice, Cameron would be daft to take it on
3) Tory/Lib pact -hard to see how it would work as too much disagreement on PR, the economy and other issues and some Tories have come out against a deal of that kind
4) Lab/Lib pact - they have common ground on the emergency budget, will do a deal on PR, share common ground on other issues

I think 4) is most likely. Such a deal could be legitimated by the fact that the popular vote is 2/3 against the Tories. Some minority parties -the one Green MP, the Alliance and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, Scot Nats and Plaid Cymry will be more inclined to support Labour.
Interesting question: did people vote for Cameron not the Tories and Labour but not Brown?
And what caused the Clegg bubble to burst?
Do you think the Greek crisis, the market turmoil and violence on the streets of Athens turned people to Labour as a comfort zone?

I've just noticed that in my first post I said that the Tories had the majority of the popular vote - that was wrong as they had the largest share of the vote but only a third of the total popular vote.


----------



## MovingtoSpain

Am having mild panic here about whether to buy some euros today, or after reading this, whether the euro really will collapse anyway. The two currencies seem to be in equally sticky situations. Anyone feeling the same?


----------



## mrypg9

MovingtoSpain said:


> Am having mild panic here about whether to buy some euros today, or after reading this, whether the euro really will collapse anyway. The two currencies seem to be in equally sticky situations. Anyone feeling the same?


I think we should have bought yesterday when the euro was 1.18 against the £.
I think the situation is so fluid and the markets unpredictable that unless you need to convert now it's best to wait and see if the dust settles.
I'm still living on euros I bought in Prague in summer 2008 when the CZK was strong against the euro, but I used £s I had convertred in 2005 when the £ was strong against the CZK.
But the cost of these transactions was enormous....


----------



## thrax

I don't think that there was a Clegg bubble to burst just confusion from the media about how well he was doing. And they fooled all of us didn't they? A Sunday Times headline about summed it up: The poeple love Clegg but hate his policies. And I'm not sure about people voting for Cameron; my guess is that in the end a lot of it came down to a protest vote against Brown and in the traditional way people voted Tory since most people still believe there is just no chance of Lib Dems getting into power. I believe that Cameron's biggest problem was that he has the charisma of a squashed slug...

As for the Greek crisis you have to feel for the people; they have done nothing wrong but watched corrupt politicians and bankers screw their country into the mess it is now in and most, if not all, of them have got away with it. Spain, Portugal and Ireland next? follwed by UK??


----------



## mrypg9

thrax said:


> I don't think that there was a Clegg bubble to burst just confusion from the media about how well he was doing. And they fooled all of us didn't they? A Sunday Times headline about summed it up: The poeple love Clegg but hate his policies. And I'm not sure about people voting for Cameron; my guess is that in the end a lot of it came down to a protest vote against Brown and in the traditional way people voted Tory since most people still believe there is just no chance of Lib Dems getting into power. I believe that Cameron's biggest problem was that he has the charisma of a squashed slug...
> 
> As for the Greek crisis you have to feel for the people; they have done nothing wrong but watched corrupt politicians and bankers screw their country into the mess it is now in and most, if not all, of them have got away with it. Spain, Portugal and Ireland next? follwed by UK??


Yes, the media and the markets seem to call the shots. I was disappointed with Cameron's performance over the campaign as a whole. If the leaders' debates had been on the radio Brown would have won, imo, as he had more substance but is not telegenic. Cameron was slick but superficial and Clegg was neither of the other two.
I was never a fan of Brown, I think he has serious character flaws (I know people who worked with him) but I was won over after seeing him in person make a major speech three years ago. Then I went off him after he bottled calling an election in 2007 he could have walked.
Am just listening to Brown. He intends to form a Government and he is emphasing the need for stability in a time of ongoing economic crisis. He is offering Clegg a deal on the budget and PR. Says tho' that Cameron should also attempt a deal but in the knowledge this won't come off, methinks....
Agree about the Greeks, they are being royally screwed altho' not the most honest and industrious of EU member states - bit like the UK in a way, we all enjoyed the good years and ignored the fact that they were largely on tick.
We personally, like others, are hit by a double whammy - all our income from the UK, low returns on investments and poor exchange rates. Both worked hard, owned businesses, saved for early retirement, never had a penny from the state and now amongst the losers of this crisis.
I feel like a minor outbreak of riot myself.....


----------



## thrax

A commentator just said that Brown offering Clegg a deal on PR is about as weak as he good get. Labour would suffer most from PR and are dead against it and of course Clegg is well aware of that. If either Labour or the Torries offer a deal on PR to include, probably, a referendum, both parites would campaign vigourously against it.

Demonstrations are a solid part of democracy but they must never resort to the deaths of innocent people imo.

Remember, democracy is a lousy form of government but it's the best one we've got...


----------



## thrax

I just heard someone say that the hung parliament is the fault of the voters; they brought it on themselves. Clearly missing the obvious that it was the politicians themselves who caused the vote to go this way. Nick Robinson has called the result a crisis but I don't think it goes that far - most European countries end up in a hung parliament after an election and they all deal with (not always well).


----------



## jojo

I've been out this morning and listening to English radio in the car! The guy on there is something to do with the Sun newspaper and to hear him talk you'd think it was Armageddon!!!

He was predicting the pound below the euro, an uprising in the streets, UK to lose its AAA rating any minute..... 

I dont think its quite as bad as he was making out, altho not good. If Nick Clegg dares to go near Gordon Brown tho, they'll be an uprising in Alhaurin de la Torre!!!! How dare Moron offer to geive in to proportional representation jus to get his nasty little party and himself into power. That just shows how shallow and unconcerned he is about the country or their wishes. 

I guess we'll have to go thru all this again in a few months!!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

thrax said:


> A commentator just said that Brown offering Clegg a deal on PR is about as weak as he good get. Labour would suffer most from PR and are dead against it and of course Clegg is well aware of that. If either Labour or the Torries offer a deal on PR to include, probably, a referendum, both parites would campaign vigourously against it.
> 
> Demonstrations are a solid part of democracy but they must never resort to the deaths of innocent people imo.
> 
> Remember, democracy is a lousy form of government but it's the best one we've got...


I know, I fought two Parliamentary and one Euro election plus leading a Group on a Council so I know how imperfect it is. But as you say, it's the best deal on offer.
And yes, I was being 'metaphorical'. I abhore political and indeed any form of violence.
Brown has offered a referendum on PR with -presumably -Brown's support for a change. Cameron has offered a Parliamentary Commission or similar, nothimng new.
I think both major Parties stand to lose lose if PR is introduced. Neither can pass 50% of the popular vote. It could be interesting: Labour could split into a more leftist party and a social democratic party and the Tories into a more hard-right as opposed to a 'one-nation' party.
It's getting quite exciting!
I'm really pleased that the odious Griffin and equally revolting Galloway are no more....


----------



## thrax

mrypg9 said:


> I know, I fought two Parliamentary and one Euro election plus leading a Group on a Council so I know how imperfect it is. But as you say, it's the best deal on offer.
> And yes, I was being 'metaphorical'. I abhore political and indeed any form of violence.
> Brown has offered a referendum on PR with -presumably -Brown's support for a change. Cameron has offered a Parliamentary Commission or similar, nothimng new.
> I think both major Parties stand to lose lose if PR is introduced. Neither can pass 50% of the popular vote. It could be interesting: Labour could split into a more leftist party and a social democratic party and the Tories into a more hard-right as opposed to a 'one-nation' party.
> It's getting quite exciting!
> I'm really pleased that the odious Griffin and equally revolting Galloway are no more....


describing Galloway and Griffin as odious is unbelievably polite; I guess you must have been in politics!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> I've been out this morning and listening to English radio in the car! The guy on there is something to do with the Sun newspaper and to hear him talk you'd think it was Armageddon!!!
> 
> He was predicting the pound below the euro, an uprising in the streets, UK to lose its AAA rating any minute.....
> 
> I dont think its quite as bad as he was making out, altho not good. If Nick Clegg dares to go near Gordon Brown tho, they'll be an uprising in Alhaurin de la Torre!!!! How dare Moron offer to geive in to proportional representation jus to get his nasty little party and himself into power. That just shows how shallow and unconcerned he is about the country or their wishes.
> 
> I guess we'll have to go thru all this again in a few months!!
> 
> Jo xxx


Well, Clegg will deal with Brown and should. After all, Cameron has 2/3 of the popular vote against him. Constitutionally Brown has the right to make the first try at forming a Government but he is -cleverly -letting Cameron have a go first.
At the end of the day, the electorate rejected Brown but maybe not Labour and the country did not give the expected support to Cameron so there is no enthusiasm for a Tory Government either.
Interestingly, a poll just taken showed an even split when people were asked who they would like to see as PM in a coalition government. That's quite significant.
As for The Sun.....not the reading choice of the politically informed, methinks. They are just miffed that their efforts to get Cameron elected, including an endorsement from the imo odious Simon Cowell proved in vain.
Are there a lot of Sun readers in Alhaurin?
Remember, Gordon's 'nasty little party' was the preferred choice of the UK electorate for the past three elections and considering that no party has gained a fourth term in the past two hundred years it's a miracle that Labour did as well as it has. As for GB being a 'moron'...that he isn't. He may be extremely unpleasant personally and has made mistakes -mistakes such as easing credit which many people took huge advantage of- but he kept us out of the euro and gained international credit for his handling of the world banking crisis.
I think that historically the Tories have been seen as the 'nasty' party because their ranks included the likes of Powell and a small but vocal number of racists and homophobes. Cameron has done a great deal to eradicate this perception but there are still a couple of oddballs in their ranks.
I'm sure there will be another election within the year, have thought so for a couple of weeks. What if the outcome is the same, though?????


----------



## mrypg9

thrax said:


> describing Galloway and Griffin as odious is unbelievably polite; I guess you must have been in politics!!!!!!!!!!


I think the filter would have erased my preferred descriptions.
I've watched Galloway for years, from his War on Want days long ago when there was talk of 'financial irregularities' to his prima donna career as Scottish Labour MP to Respect and I hated and mistrusted him from Day One.
As for Griffin and his gang of crims and dimwits....I have had direct and physical experience of these fascists and their predecessors the National Front when I lived in London. Twisted little inadequates, most of the leadership with criminal records and totally useless as Councillors, way out of their depth.
I did always try to be polite, though, and had good relationships with most people I worked with. After all, my opponents were good people with different opinions (unless BNP or hard-left types who I found it hard to show much respect for), not demons and at the end of the day, as Group Leader, you have to work with people for the common good. Some degree of compromise is usually involved, however much you try to disguise the fact.
As will be the case in the current situation...


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> Are there a lot of Sun readers in Alhaurin?


Good heavens no!!! There maybe in Alhaurin El Grande, but not in de la Torre!!! I dont read it either,(well maybe occasionally cos its easy reading and doesnt use big words lol!!). I was out and about in the car today and whereas I usually listen to Spanish radio, I wanted to hear about the election so searched for an English station and came across "spectrum FM" who had some kind of link with a UK station that was hosting "gauntry"?????????? Some chap who's something to do with the Sun newspaper - a very excitable and "talks for the ordinary man on the street" kinda chap!! He was in a terrible state of panic about it all. He had a phone-in thing going on and everyone who he spoke to was on the verge of hysteria!

Its that kind of reporting that causes half the trouble in the UK


----------



## gus-lopez

Jon Gaunt I think ,does the newspaper reviews on Sky.


----------



## mrypg9

On reflection, I think that if I were Cameron, I'd let Brown do a deal, sit back and relish the difficulties that will pile on his head over the next few months -market turmoil, Greek crisis, emergency budget -and wait for my chance at the next election which will be soon.
On the subject of PR...didn't the Government win a vote in the Commons guaranteeing a referendum on electoral reform in the next Parliament whoever was in power?
Or did that fall because of the dissolution of Parliament?


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Good heavens no!!! There maybe in Alhaurin El Grande, but not in de la Torre!!! I dont read it either,(well maybe occasionally cos its easy reading and doesnt use big words lol!!). I was out and about in the car today and whereas I usually listen to Spanish radio, I wanted to hear about the election so searched for an English station and came across "spectrum FM" who had some kind of link with a UK station that was hosting "gauntry"?????????? Some chap who's something to do with the Sun newspaper - a very excitable and "talks for the ordinary man on the street" kinda chap!! He was in a terrible state of panic about it all. He had a phone-in thing going on and everyone who he spoke to was on the verge of hysteria!
> 
> Its that kind of reporting that causes half the trouble in the UK


Don't keep putting yourself down!! You ain't dim, far from it!!
Yes, that kind of reporting does create trouble because it gives a distorted view. The Daily Mail was forecasting riots if there were a hung Parliament,very irresponsible.
I think this is the most interesting election for years as the next election could be in a totally different format. So interesting that I'm still lounging in bed watching the BBC lol.. (Have cleaned up though)
Like it or not, our unwritten constitution could allow Brown to form a Government with the LibDems, the one Green MP, Sinn Fein, various Ulster MPs, Scots Nats, Plaid Cymru et al. Add up the total share of their popular votes, add to Labour's share and you have a majority of the popular vote. A legitimate claim to govern?The Tories got 36%, not a ringing endorsement. They expected a walkover. At one point so did I.
Of the three leaders, Cameron has the worst hand to play....and the most to lose at this point in time.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> Don't keep putting yourself down!! You ain't dim, far from it!!
> Yes, that kind of reporting does create trouble because it gives a distorted view. The Daily Mail was forecasting riots if there were a hung Parliament,very irresponsible.
> I think this is the most interesting election for years as the next election could be in a totally different format. So interesting that I'm still lounging in bed watching the BBC lol.. (Have cleaned up though)
> Like it or not, our unwritten constitution could allow Brown to form a Government with the LibDems, the one Green MP, Sinn Fein, various Ulster MPs, Scots Nats, Plaid Cymru et al. Add up the total share of their popular votes, add to Labour's share and you have a majority of the popular vote. A legitimate claim to govern?The Tories got 36%, not a ringing endorsement. They expected a walkover. At one point so did I.
> Of the three leaders, Cameron has the worst hand to play....and the most to lose at this point in time.



Personally I think its crazy. All the losers can club together and the one with the most votes/seats loses! Altho the truth is probably that we'll all be doing this again in a few months time, so I guess it doesnt matter. Not one of them caught my eye anyway!


Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Personally I think its crazy. All the losers can club together and the one with the most votes/seats loses! Altho the truth is probably that we'll all be doing this again in a few months time, so I guess it doesnt matter. Not one of them caught my eye anyway!
> 
> 
> Jo xxx


I'm not a fan of PR - if/when we get it in the UK we'd have the current situation many times worse, with haggling over who could form a government, who would support whom, what policies would have to be horsetraded....
And there would be more parties claiming inclusion, not just the current three. You'd have BNP, UKIP, assorted other loonies to factor in too. 
A nightmare...
But apparently only Greece and France still have FPTP. And the system works well in Germany as they have an alternative vote system of PR which allows for constituency MPs as well as a list.


----------



## jojo

Well my OH who has been following all this a little more closely thinks that the Lib Dems are an honourable party and may well let the tory party have the election, on the understanding that they put the PR thru??????? He's pretty sure that they wont want to be associated with gordon??

Jo xxx


----------



## dunmovin

You DO know the real reason Gordon became PM?... It's all the fault of the Scottish Tourist Board.... They came up with slogan "Keep Scotland Tidy" so we did...... and threw all our rubbish in England:eyebrows::eyebrows::eyebrows:


----------



## DROOBY

dunmovin said:


> You DO know the real reason Gordon became PM?... It's all the fault of the Scottish Tourist Board.... They came up with slogan "Keep Scotland Tidy" so we did...... and threw all our rubbish in England:eyebrows::eyebrows::eyebrows:


OWCH!!! lol:clap2:


----------



## littleredrooster

mrypg9 said:


> Well, Clegg will deal with Brown and should. After all, Cameron has 2/3 of the popular vote against him. Constitutionally Brown has the right to make the first try at forming a Government but he is -cleverly -letting Cameron have a go first.(


If Cameron and Clegg want to talk to each other without consulting Brown that is their freedom of choice, and Brown has absolutely no say in that matter as we have seen today.
Furthermore,in the unlikely event they manage to do a deal, Brown's only remaining task would be to go to the Palace to see Liz and hand in his cards.
In fact a desperate looking Brown was so sad at getting left on the shelf today, that he had to go outside and make a statement of a sort just to get himself noticed.
Whatever the end result may be of a Con/Lib arrangement or Lab/Lib arrangement is anybodies guess, as neither is a marriage made in heaven, and the combined problems of the economic situation in addition to trying to sing from the same hymnsheet will probably end up being to much for either.
In any event,looking at it in the long term,..the short term winners,albeit possibly after a re-run election, are likely to end up as long term losers and viceversa.


----------



## jojo

shall we put this into the "expat lounge"???? It might be interesting discussion to open up for others???? Any thoughts?

Jo xxxx


----------



## JBODEN

jojo said:


> shall we put this into the "expat lounge"???? It might be interesting discussion to open up for others???? Any thoughts?
> 
> Jo xxxx


The pros & cons of PR? Why not!


----------



## dunmovin

It would seem that Clegg may be the "kingmaker" but Cameron has enough to form a minority government so it would seem sensible for libdem to align with tories and get some say in the way the country is run. Brown, even with Clegg still hasn't got enough, which would mean bringing in others. That makes me wonder if a government like that could do what none of us thought possible..... screw things up even more


----------



## Guest

Yes with a Brown/Clegg alliance plus a few random others, it would be such a tiny majority that nothing much would get done once the inevitable dissenters stick their oars in.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Strange...
This seems to be the only country on the forum that's discussing the Elections in the UK. Is it really only the Spanish contingent that finds this interesting?
Also I heard several interviews on the radio of Brits living in Spain and they all said they weren't following the elections.


----------



## mrypg9

A few things are clear: Brown is PM and will remain so until somebody forms a Government capable of governing. He quite rightly left the first negotiations to Clegg and Cameron. But if that deal fails to come off, Brown then has the right, if Cameron will not form a minority Tory Government, to try to cobble up his own deal. Like it or not, that is the constitutional position and The Daily Telegraph,no friend of Brown, has endorsed his action.
I personally can't see a Clegg/Cameron deal as there are too many points of divergence in too many areas, the biggie being PR, where the most Cameron can offer is a referendum with the Tories campaigning against it. They know well that PR would shut the door on any chance of another Tory Government for ever as the anti-Tory Lib/Lab alliance popular vote combined will always be greater than the Tory vote - in this election they got 5 million more votes.
A lab/Lib pact will have more areas of convergence and Labour have promised a referendum on constitutional change.....before the election, contrary to what some people seem to think.
Many Labour MPs support PR.
As John Major said, Labour lost but the Tories didn't win and under our current system that is a fact, however odd or unpalatable it may seem to some people. FPTP is workable and has delivered stable government for decades but a two-horse race has now become a three-horse race which makes FPTP extremely problematic as it leads to the kind of horse-trading we are now seeing.
TBH, looking at the international scene with another looming financial crisis about to hit, if I were David Cameron I'd step back and let Brown do his deal. It's not just the Lib Dems who could support Labour, there are a dozen other MPs from various small parties who are more natural Labour allies. If PR is promised and voted for in a referendum it won't replace the current system for a while yet anyway.
As Mervyn King said, whoever wins power now will have to implement such deep and savage cuts that they will be out of power for the next twenty years.
Some prize to fight for....


----------



## jojo

As pointed out somewhere last night, Brown wasnt elected in in the first place and hasnt been elected in this time??? How the heck has someone with no personality, no PR or leadership skills, managed it?????? Where's the mans pride?? Its obvious he's not popular, yet he's gormlessly just staying there! And what about democracy? 

I'm quite cross about it this morning

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Well my OH who has been following all this a little more closely thinks that the Lib Dems are an honourable party and may well let the tory party have the election, on the understanding that they put the PR thru??????? He's pretty sure that they wont want to be associated with gordon??
> 
> Jo xxx


Anyone, Conservative or Labour, who has had experience of working with or campaigning against Lib/Dems in local government knows that honourable is the last word they'd apply to them! They are past-masters at the dark arts of dirty tactics. Of course that's the case in all parties and the Lib/Dems are certainly no different, sadly.
They cannot 'let the Tories have the election', it's not as simple as that. Under our current FPTP system any party that wants to govern has to command a majority in the House of Commons and Cameron is not likely to be able to do that alone, without other party support. As I keep on saying, the Tories did not win, neither in the terms of seats in the Commons or a majority of the popular vote. They are the largest party in terms of Parliamentary seats but took only one-third share of the popular vote.
Our current voting system is probably not fit for use - but will we be saying that if the next election, coming very soon, returns a party with a commanding majority?
I think not.
I said before I am not a natural fan of PR. PR would, on past voting pattern evidence, deprive the Tories of ever governing again, which is why the grass-roots members will be highly unlikely to agree to Cameron forming a coalition/pact which involved serious concessions on reform of the voting system.
We shouldn't forget that ordinary members of all parties will be consulted before any significant policy planks are conceded. Whether they will be listened to is another thing.


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> As pointed out somewhere last night, Brown wasnt elected in in the first place and hasnt been elected in this time??? How the heck has someone with no personality, no PR or leadership skills, managed it?????? Where's the mans pride?? Its obvious he's not popular, yet he's gormlessly just staying there! And what about democracy?
> 
> I'm quite cross about it this morning
> 
> Jo xxx


Were you cross when John Major was elected?  He was in the same position as Brown. Both stood for internal party election first. Brown isn't the first PM not to have been elected before presenting himself to the public. There have been a few others. That is really a red herring.
Until Ted Heath, the Conservatives had no internal election before choosing their Leaders. I think someone was sent to 'have a discrete word with someone'.
Democracy has done its job but inconclusively. The public don't want Labour but they don't want Cameron either. If democracy in the sense of the will of all the people were carried out, the result of this election should be that Brown and Clegg were joint PMs since they had more votes on aggregate than the Tories.
But we don't do things that way, currently. 
Brown is not 'just staying there'. He does what he must do according to our unwritten constitution and precedent until someone is in a position to form a Government which can command a majority in the House of Commons and not be defeated on the vote on the Queen's Speech.
I'm sorry but I dislike these comments about Brown's 'stupidity', etc. I don't like the man, he is arrogant, bullying, treats his staff badly and has dithered or changed his mind over some crucial issues, but stupid he ain't. I don't like labelling politicians I disagree with as stupid, they are, on the whole, good, sincere people who happen to think think differently from me.If he had kept his nerve and gone to the country in 2007 he would have had an enormous majority....so much for his 'unpopularity'. But he bottled it.
As for leadership.....his record as Chancellor will be forever tarnished by his record as PM but the Tories, first having criticised his handling of Northern Rock and other measures, changed tack and supported them. He received international acclaim for his handling of the world crisis.
His PR skills are zero but this is an election to determine who rules the country, not a beauty contest, although media coverage made it sound like the X Facor or Britain's Got Talent.
So....Brown may not be eveyone's cup of tea but personal attacks are imo as invidious as those on Cameron which blame him for going to Eton -he didn't send himself there -and his Bullingdon Club days.
When I was in politics I kept away from the personal stuff. We've all got skeletons in our cupboards, quietly rattling away.


----------



## mrypg9

An odd and interesting fact: in all the excitement about the hung Parliament, no-one has noticed that in the local Council elections also held on Thursday, Labour were the clear winners, taking seats from Tories and Lib Dems. I think they won control of 14 councils.
Which raises an interesting question: would Labour have gained a fourth term if someone other than Brown were Leader?
If they had won, with Alan Johnson, say, in charge, it would have been truly historic, the first time in over two hundred years.
I wouldn't have put money on it happening. Sometimes people just want a change, for no particular reason. A long spell with the same party in charge isn't verry desirable imo, whoever they are.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> An odd and interesting fact: in all the excitement about the hung Parliament, no-one has noticed that in the local Council elections also held on Thursday, Labour were the clear winners, taking seats from Tories and Lib Dems. I think they won control of 14 councils.
> Which raises an interesting question: would Labour have gained a fourth term if someone other than Brown were Leader?
> If they had won, with Alan Johnson, say, in charge, it would have been truly historic, the first time in over two hundred years.
> I wouldn't have put money on it happening. Sometimes people just want a change, for no particular reason. A long spell with the same party in charge isn't verry desirable imo, whoever they are.



Brown has to go dont you think? Regardless of what happens. I also think the tories would have done better if they'd had a grown up in their party - Ken Clarke as chancellor?????

Jo xxx


----------



## Guest

This blog piece by Nick Robinson is interesting, especially the last part...
_"My hunch is that a Tory/Lib Dem arrangement can be formed but not a coalition which both parties would find too hard to stomach. The reason is that both parties' leadership's have a shared interest in avoiding an early second election. The Lib Dems are shell shocked by the extent to which their dreams of an electoral breakthrough were smashed and have no money for anther campaign. The Tories are surprised by Labour's electoral resilience and do not fancy getting to grips with the deficit whilst constantly looking over their shoulders at the electorate.

Oh, and one other thing. Lib Dem votes in Parliament may prove more reliable for David Cameron than restless Tory backbenchers."_​


----------



## gus-lopez

Here's his record as Chancellor, as sent to me:

Just a few very interesting facts about Gordon Brown
We used to have 6 independent regulators to regulate the different divisions of the financial services industry, including our Banks. (Margaret Thatcher knew what the Banks were like and in the 1988 Finance Act she bound the Banks up in regulation to prevent them from being reckless!!!)

Then Gordon Brown became Chancellor on 6th May 1997 Gordon's banker friends said "We want all these regulators to go" "We don't want regulators watching everything we do"
AND GORDON SAID OK
So, Gordon announced on the 20th May 1997 (2 weeks after becoming Chancellor) that the six regulatory bodies would be broken up and a new Financial Services Authority would replace them. The FSA had virtually no powers over the Banks and he also took away the powers from the Bank of England to enforce regulation on them.
The result is the devastation we are all suffering today.


We used to have a Monopolies and Mergers Commission.Then Gordon's banker friends said we don't want the Monopolies and Mergers commission telling us who we can and ct "Take Over"
AND GORDON SAID OK

So, in 1998 Gordon scrapped the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and created a replacement called the Competition Commission, with very much reduced powers and different ideas of what used to be regarded as a "Monopoly".
The result is the Massive Corporations we have today who are ruling and shaping our lives for their own benefit and profits. Not to mention the massive Monopolies held by some of these corporations through the forced
purchases of all their competitors

We used to have pension regulations, which for many decades had included something called "The Pensions Cap."The pensions cap set a limit on how much pension any scheme member (including directors) could get from an occupational pension scheme, irrespective of how high their earnings were.It was there to protect the ordinary members pensions. To prevent Directors paying themselves obscene salaries and then draining the pension funds with huge pensions.

Then Gordon Brown's banker friends said that they wanted the pensions cap removing so that they could get pensions related to their obscene earnings. (The whole Pensions industry gave him warnings of the effects it would have. Even the Inland revenue put forward objections)

BUT GORDON SAID OK because Gordon never likes to disappoint his banker friends
So Gordon took away the Pensions Cap in 2005 and then some of his friends were able to leave their boardroom positions with huge pensions!!! For example Fred Goodwin was apparently entitled to a pension of over £700,000. If Gordon had left the pensions cap in place that would have been a mere £125,000. Well done Fred and your mates!!!
(The Superannuations Division of the Inland Revenue have kept a record of what it should be, in readiness for when we get a new chancellor who sees fit to re-instate it. George Osborn has pledged to do that). The record of Pensions Cap limits are available to view on the Revenue's website. The result of this is that along with Gordon's "Tax Raid" on pension funds starting July 1997, over four thousand UK company pension scheme's have closed their doors to new members and many of them have had to close down altogether, leaving millions of workers without any pension provision.


This man Gordon Brown "professes to be a socialist and "for" the working man . The working man's main form of long term financial security had for many years been his company pension scheme, something to look forward to at the end of a life of hard work, his reward, light at the end of a long dark tunnel. Gordon has put an end to that by destroying the most valuable asset of the average British worker.


IT IS ONE OF THE GREATEST TRAVESTIES OF JUSTICE THAT THIS MAN WHO PRETENDS TO BE "FOR THE WORKING MAN" HAS IN FACT BEEN HIS WORST ENEMY FOR THE LAST
THIRTEEN YEARS AND WILL LEAVE A LEGACY THAT WE WILL STILL BE CLEARING UP FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.
THE REAL INJUSTICE IS THAT ITS ALL BEEN DONE IN AREAS WHICH ARE TOTALLY OUT OF SIGHT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING MANY
GORDON RELIES ENTIRELY ON PEOPLES IGNORANCE TO GET AWAY WITH HIS INDISCRETIONS. GORDON'S MOTTO OF:
"DENY EVERYTHING AND ADMIT NOTHING" SEEMS TO BE WORKING QUITE WELL FOR HIM SO FAR!!!


LASTLY, WHAT GORDON LIKES TO CALL THE "GLOBAL BANKING CRISIS"
Have you noticed that we were the first to be in it and are the last to be out (and whether we are out is very speculative!!!) As he has openly admitted, The Royal Bank of Scotland was the worlds biggest bank.
So when RBS and HBOS were about to go BUST in October 2008 and they had to be bailed out overnight so they did not take the entire country down with them, (that by the way was almost certainly a decision made by the hierarchy in Whitehall for which Gordon loves to take the credit). As the world’s leading banks now all lend money to each other on a colossal scale, isn't it obvious that the world’s biggest bank going down would have a devastating effect on all the others it dealt with. This "worlds biggest bank" had also sold bad mortgage books to other banks. Most of the Banks in Europe which ran into crisis were dragged into it because of the crooked dealings of our big Banks. A fact that both Germany and France were quick to remind Gordon Brown of at the G20 emergency meeting shortly after the crisis.
There are many other of Gordon's indiscretions, far too many to list here, but perhaps the few biggie's shown above will give some insight into how Gordon operates.
By the way have you noticed how he has suddenly become interested in Social issues now an election is looming and seems to be able to promise the world when, as Alistair Darling put it a few days ago, there is not a
penny left in the bank!!!
Think very carefully before casting your vote for this man who is probably the most extreme capitalist of the past century while pretending to be "for the working man".


GORDON WORSHIPS THE SUPER RICH AND POWERFUL AND CANNOT SAY NO TO THEM

(Received by email this morning)

Then throw in selling 40% of the gold reserves @ the bottom of the market !


----------



## JBODEN

gus-lopez said:


> Here's his record as Chancellor, as sent to me:
> 
> Just a few very interesting facts about Gordon Brown
> We used to have 6 independent regulators to regulate the different divisions of the financial services industry, including our Banks. (Margaret Thatcher knew what the Banks were like and in the 1988 Finance Act she bound the Banks up in regulation to prevent them from being reckless!!!)
> 
> Then Gordon Brown became Chancellor on 6th May 1997 Gordon's banker friends said "We want all these regulators to go" "We don't want regulators watching everything we do"
> AND GORDON SAID OK
> So, Gordon announced on the 20th May 1997 (2 weeks after becoming Chancellor) that the six regulatory bodies would be broken up and a new Financial Services Authority would replace them. The FSA had virtually no powers over the Banks and he also took away the powers from the Bank of England to enforce regulation on them.
> The result is the devastation we are all suffering today.
> 
> 
> We used to have a Monopolies and Mergers Commission.Then Gordon's banker friends said we don't want the Monopolies and Mergers commission telling us who we can and ct "Take Over"
> AND GORDON SAID OK
> 
> So, in 1998 Gordon scrapped the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and created a replacement called the Competition Commission, with very much reduced powers and different ideas of what used to be regarded as a "Monopoly".
> The result is the Massive Corporations we have today who are ruling and shaping our lives for their own benefit and profits. Not to mention the massive Monopolies held by some of these corporations through the forced
> purchases of all their competitors
> 
> We used to have pension regulations, which for many decades had included something called "The Pensions Cap."The pensions cap set a limit on how much pension any scheme member (including directors) could get from an occupational pension scheme, irrespective of how high their earnings were.It was there to protect the ordinary members pensions. To prevent Directors paying themselves obscene salaries and then draining the pension funds with huge pensions.
> 
> Then Gordon Brown's banker friends said that they wanted the pensions cap removing so that they could get pensions related to their obscene earnings. (The whole Pensions industry gave him warnings of the effects it would have. Even the Inland revenue put forward objections)
> 
> BUT GORDON SAID OK because Gordon never likes to disappoint his banker friends
> So Gordon took away the Pensions Cap in 2005 and then some of his friends were able to leave their boardroom positions with huge pensions!!! For example Fred Goodwin was apparently entitled to a pension of over £700,000. If Gordon had left the pensions cap in place that would have been a mere £125,000. Well done Fred and your mates!!!
> (The Superannuations Division of the Inland Revenue have kept a record of what it should be, in readiness for when we get a new chancellor who sees fit to re-instate it. George Osborn has pledged to do that). The record of Pensions Cap limits are available to view on the Revenue's website. The result of this is that along with Gordon's "Tax Raid" on pension funds starting July 1997, over four thousand UK company pension scheme's have closed their doors to new members and many of them have had to close down altogether, leaving millions of workers without any pension provision.
> 
> 
> This man Gordon Brown "professes to be a socialist and "for" the working man . The working man's main form of long term financial security had for many years been his company pension scheme, something to look forward to at the end of a life of hard work, his reward, light at the end of a long dark tunnel. Gordon has put an end to that by destroying the most valuable asset of the average British worker.
> 
> 
> IT IS ONE OF THE GREATEST TRAVESTIES OF JUSTICE THAT THIS MAN WHO PRETENDS TO BE "FOR THE WORKING MAN" HAS IN FACT BEEN HIS WORST ENEMY FOR THE LAST
> THIRTEEN YEARS AND WILL LEAVE A LEGACY THAT WE WILL STILL BE CLEARING UP FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.
> THE REAL INJUSTICE IS THAT ITS ALL BEEN DONE IN AREAS WHICH ARE TOTALLY OUT OF SIGHT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING MANY
> GORDON RELIES ENTIRELY ON PEOPLES IGNORANCE TO GET AWAY WITH HIS INDISCRETIONS. GORDON'S MOTTO OF:
> "DENY EVERYTHING AND ADMIT NOTHING" SEEMS TO BE WORKING QUITE WELL FOR HIM SO FAR!!!
> 
> 
> LASTLY, WHAT GORDON LIKES TO CALL THE "GLOBAL BANKING CRISIS"
> Have you noticed that we were the first to be in it and are the last to be out (and whether we are out is very speculative!!!) As he has openly admitted, The Royal Bank of Scotland was the worlds biggest bank.
> So when RBS and HBOS were about to go BUST in October 2008 and they had to be bailed out overnight so they did not take the entire country down with them, (that by the way was almost certainly a decision made by the hierarchy in Whitehall for which Gordon loves to take the credit). As the world’s leading banks now all lend money to each other on a colossal scale, isn't it obvious that the world’s biggest bank going down would have a devastating effect on all the others it dealt with. This "worlds biggest bank" had also sold bad mortgage books to other banks. Most of the Banks in Europe which ran into crisis were dragged into it because of the crooked dealings of our big Banks. A fact that both Germany and France were quick to remind Gordon Brown of at the G20 emergency meeting shortly after the crisis.
> There are many other of Gordon's indiscretions, far too many to list here, but perhaps the few biggie's shown above will give some insight into how Gordon operates.
> By the way have you noticed how he has suddenly become interested in Social issues now an election is looming and seems to be able to promise the world when, as Alistair Darling put it a few days ago, there is not a
> penny left in the bank!!!
> Think very carefully before casting your vote for this man who is probably the most extreme capitalist of the past century while pretending to be "for the working man".
> 
> 
> GORDON WORSHIPS THE SUPER RICH AND POWERFUL AND CANNOT SAY NO TO THEM
> 
> (Received by email this morning)
> 
> Then throw in selling 40% of the gold reserves @ the bottom of the market !


He should be impeached!


----------



## dunmovin

just to add to the confusion.. the french and the germans came up with this
British taxpayers ordered to bail out euro - Telegraph

what affect will this have on the pro-anti EU divide between libdem and conseratives?


----------



## gus-lopez

dunmovin said:


> just to add to the confusion.. the french and the germans came up with this
> British taxpayers ordered to bail out euro - Telegraph
> 
> what affect will this have on the pro-anti EU divide between libdem and conseratives?


That's what Gordon did using the terrorism act to freeze Icelands assets.  It's all in the small print !


----------



## dunmovin

gus-lopez said:


> That's what Gordon did using the terrorism act to freeze Icelands assets.  It's all in the small print !


not quite. Gordon the moron did it when an ICELANDIC bank failed and froze ICELANDIC assets. But I suppose the blame for this still lies at his door for forcing through the Lisbon Treaty without the approval of the electorate


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Brown has to go dont you think? Regardless of what happens. I also think the tories would have done better if they'd had a grown up in their party - Ken Clarke as chancellor?????
> 
> Jo xxx


I think that Brown WILL go. Not sure about Ken Clarke, I used to have a lot of time for him but from his recent tv appearances he's getting old and slowing down (like me). But he is still a heavyweight.
Be fair to Cameron...he has done a great deal to 'detoxify the Tory brand ', as a Tory MP whose name I forget aptly put it. But he didn't win the election and that is a massive blow for the Tories, considering Brown's unpopularity, the economic situation and the huge amount of cash poured into the marginals by Ashcroft the tax dodger. (Interesting that Blair the multi-millionaire didn't bankroll Labour, as far as we know).
I honestly cannot see how Clegg can do a deal with Dave C. which doesn't include a referendum on PR. Without it, LibDems are finished in the next election coming later this year. With PR, the Tories are doomed to never rule again since, as I said before, there has always been and will always be a progrsesive anti-Tory majority as shown by the popular vote in every UK election for the past fifty years and more. 
Other areas of major disagreement are Europe, tax, when to start cutting public spending, defence and replacing Trident, immigration, education.....these are truly vital areas and Clegg will find it hard to yield on these, as will Cameron. They have to rely on their MPs and party members to support whatever deal they cook up, remember. On most of these issues LibDems and Labour are closer.
Gus: yes, I have often wondered whether Brown is a neo-con Tory in disguise!
Independence of the Central Bank,unrestricted credit, deregulation and lax oversight and to my mond most mysterious of all: Public Private Finance Initiatives which mean we will be paying for hospitals, schools etc. for years to come. These are all right-wing policies which belong in a Conservative Manifesto.
Interestingly, the latest LibDem line is 'we are talking to the Tories and listening to Labour'. 
I cannot see how, given the policy differences, Clegg can deliver stable support to the Tories. So will Cameron attempt a Tory minority government, with ad hoc support from other parties? If so, very little of the platform the Tories fought on can be delivered. There will be huge compromises. 
Clegg could form a coalition with Brown and the others with a referendum on PR as a central plank. Labour promised this in its manifesto. But then he would be seen to be propping up a PM nobody wanted.
I think some form of PR is inevitable although I'm not sure yet how I feel personally about this -not that my views matter a toss in the great scale of things.
It would seem that the electorate would favour a reform of the current system which would deliver a permanent progressive majority. This could be very interesting and lead to splits in both major parties which would be a good thing, imo. I would be happy to see the hard left splitting from mainstream social democrat Labour (as happened in Germany) as I could then vote for mainstream Labour with more enthusiasm. But I equally support many of the Tory policies for business and I am convinced that the Tory Party is now committed to equality and diversity.
Dunmovin....I think the EU, like the IMF,G20 etc is a profoundly undemocratic institution. The Lisbon Treaty makes it very marginally less so. Brown should have honoured the commitment to have a referendum but it is fair to say that the Treaty as revised was in some ways, admittedly not significant, different from the original document. In ratifying it by using his Parliamentary majority he behaved just like Margaret Thatcher when she signed the Single European Act in 1987, an act which had a more profound impact on the UK than the Lisbon Treaty, as it allowed us to settle here and mass immigration from Eastern Europe to the UK when these former Communist states joined the EU in 2004.
As for using the term 'moron' to describe Gordon Brown.....the tone of political debate has markedly changed in the last two days, for the better. Civility, respect and cooperation have replaced acrimony and venom and long may that continue.
Brown has behaved in the past few days with great dignity and done his constitutional duty - said The Daily Telegraph. The usual suspects in the right-wing gutter press have mounted a disgraceful, spiteful personal campaign against the Prime Minister and in so doing demean political discourse. You go for the policies, not the wo/man. The Left treated Thatcher ion the same way and it was shameful.
Gordon Brown may not appeal to you or me but he is far from being a moron and I would suggest that he may have more intelligence, knowledge and skill than you, me or my very intelligent dog put together.
Personal abuse should NEVER play a part in politics unless there are solid grounds for demeaning character as in the case of those who still in 2010 back parties which revere Hitler or Stalin. Such people are imo beyond the pale.
An equally interesting contest is being played out this pm which I'm off to watch, hoping Man U will beat Chelsea to the top spot.


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> not quite. Gordon the moron did it when an ICELANDIC bank failed and froze ICELANDIC assets. But I suppose the blame for this still lies at his door for forcing through the Lisbon Treaty without the approval of the electorate


To summarise my lengthy post.....did you feel the same when Margaret Thatcher used her majority to 'force through' the Single European Act in 1987?
That Act was directly responsible for the huge immigration from Eastern Europe after she also encouraged the former Communist bloc states to join the EU. But like Brown, her Party had a majority of seats in Parliament. And before you say 'Ah yes, but Brown was 'not elected by the people', neither was John Major when he replaced her as Leader and PM and agreed to the Maastrict Treaty.
The SEA also gave us the right to live any where in the EU, of course.
The Prime Minister may lead a party you do not support but calling him a moron is not a very positive contribution to political debate, is it?
The lack of respect in society as a whole is added to when we or the press insult and belittle politicians we disagree with. That applies to us all, imo.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> I think that Brown WILL go. Not sure about Ken Clarke, I used to have a lot of time for him but from his recent tv appearances he's getting old and slowing down (like me). But he is still a heavyweight.
> Be fair to Cameron...he has done a great deal to 'detoxify the Tory brand ', as a Tory MP whose name I forget aptly put it. But he didn't win the election and that is a massive blow for the Tories, considering Brown's unpopularity, the economic situation and the huge amount of cash poured into the marginals by Ashcroft the tax dodger. (Interesting that Blair the multi-millionaire didn't bankroll Labour, as far as we know).
> I honestly cannot see how Clegg can do a deal with Dave C. which doesn't include a referendum on PR. Without it, LibDems are finished in the next election coming later this year. With PR, the Tories are doomed to never rule again since, as I said before, there has always been and will always be a progrsesive anti-Tory majority as shown by the popular vote in every UK election for the past fifty years and more.
> Other areas of major disagreement are Europe, tax, when to start cutting public spending, defence and replacing Trident, immigration, education.....these are truly vital areas and Clegg will find it hard to yield on these, as will Cameron. They have to rely on their MPs and party members to support whatever deal they cook up, remember. On most of these issues LibDems and Labour are closer.
> Gus: yes, I have often wondered whether Brown is a neo-con Tory in disguise!
> Independence of the Central Bank,unrestricted credit, deregulation and lax oversight and to my mond most mysterious of all: Public Private Finance Initiatives which mean we will be paying for hospitals, schools etc. for years to come. These are all right-wing policies which belong in a Conservative Manifesto.
> Interestingly, the latest LibDem line is 'we are talking to the Tories and listening to Labour'.
> I cannot see how, given the policy differences, Clegg can deliver stable support to the Tories. So will Cameron attempt a Tory minority government, with ad hoc support from other parties? If so, very little of the platform the Tories fought on can be delivered. There will be huge compromises.
> Clegg could form a coalition with Brown and the others with a referendum on PR as a central plank. Labour promised this in its manifesto. But then he would be seen to be propping up a PM nobody wanted.
> I think some form of PR is inevitable although I'm not sure yet how I feel personally about this -not that my views matter a toss in the great scale of things.
> It would seem that the electorate would favour a reform of the current system which would deliver a permanent progressive majority. This could be very interesting and lead to splits in both major parties which would be a good thing, imo. I would be happy to see the hard left splitting from mainstream social democrat Labour (as happened in Germany) as I could then vote for mainstream Labour with more enthusiasm. But I equally support many of the Tory policies for business and I am convinced that the Tory Party is now committed to equality and diversity.
> Dunmovin....I think the EU, like the IMF,G20 etc is a profoundly undemocratic institution. The Lisbon Treaty makes it very marginally less so. Brown should have honoured the commitment to have a referendum but it is fair to say that the Treaty as revised was in some ways, admittedly not significant, different from the original document. In ratifying it by using his Parliamentary majority he behaved just like Margaret Thatcher when she signed the Single European Act in 1987, an act which had a more profound impact on the UK than the Lisbon Treaty, as it allowed us to settle here and mass immigration from Eastern Europe to the UK when these former Communist states joined the EU in 2004.
> As for using the term 'moron' to describe Gordon Brown.....the tone of political debate has markedly changed in the last two days, for the better. Civility, respect and cooperation have replaced acrimony and venom and long may that continue.
> Brown has behaved in the past few days with great dignity and done his constitutional duty - said The Daily Telegraph. The usual suspects in the right-wing gutter press have mounted a disgraceful, spiteful personal campaign against the Prime Minister and in so doing demean political discourse. You go for the policies, not the wo/man. The Left treated Thatcher ion the same way and it was shameful.
> Gordon Brown may not appeal to you or me but he is far from being a moron and I would suggest that he may have more intelligence, knowledge and skill than you, me or my very intelligent dog put together.
> Personal abuse should NEVER play a part in politics unless there are solid grounds for demeaning character as in the case of those who still in 2010 back parties which revere Hitler or Stalin. Such people are imo beyond the pale.
> An equally interesting contest is being played out this pm which I'm off to watch, hoping Man U will beat Chelsea to the top spot.


Depressing! Thanx for that Mry!!!!

Has this been posted yet ? 

British taxpayers ordered to bail out euro - Telegraph

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> just to add to the confusion.. the french and the germans came up with this
> British taxpayers ordered to bail out euro - Telegraph
> 
> what affect will this have on the pro-anti EU divide between libdem and conseratives?


British banks hold Greek Government bonds, as do German and French banks and many others outside the eurozone. It's essentially another bank bailout under a different guise.
The report from the Telegraph won't influence anyone on either side to change their views as the Telegraph is known to be strongly anti EU so Tory Europhobes will agree and LibDem Europhiles pay no heed.
This is the crunch issue facing whoever leads the next Goverment.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> British banks hold Greek Government bonds, as do German and French banks and many others outside the eurozone. It's essentially another bank bailout under a different guise.
> The report from the Telegraph won't influence anyone on either side to change their views as the Telegraph is known to be strongly anti EU so Tory Europhobes will agree and LibDem Europhiles pay no heed.
> This is the crunch issue facing whoever leads the next Goverment.


:Cry::Cry::Cry::Cry::Cry:

Jo xxx :sad:


----------



## dunmovin

mrypg9 said:


> To summarise my lengthy post.....did you feel the same when Margaret Thatcher used her majority to 'force through' the Single European Act in 1987?
> That Act was directly responsible for the huge immigration from Eastern Europe after she also encouraged the former Communist bloc states to join the EU. But like Brown, her Party had a majority of seats in Parliament. And before you say 'Ah yes, but Brown was 'not elected by the people', neither was John Major when he replaced her as Leader and PM and agreed to the Maastrict Treaty.
> The SEA also gave us the right to live any where in the EU, of course.
> The Prime Minister may lead a party you do not support but calling him a moron is not a very positive contribution to political debate, is it?
> The lack of respect in society as a whole is added to when we or the press insult and belittle politicians we disagree with. That applies to us all, imo.


Considering the ammount of money Blair and Brown have cost me personally, I think they only reap what they have sewn in the lack of respect department. With their mismanagement of the country I came from, I have lost a great deal of hard earned money.

:boxing:


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 An equally interesting contest is being played out this pm which I'm off to watch said:


> Here, here!


----------



## littleredrooster

JBODEN said:


> Here, here!


Dream on guys.
Chelski 8 Wigan 0
Record more than100 goals.
Can't argue with that!
Watch out for Arsenal next time around.


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> Considering the ammount of money Blair and Brown have cost me personally, I think they only reap what they have sewn in the lack of respect department. With their mismanagement of the country I came from, I have lost a great deal of hard earned money.
> 
> :boxing:


Well, we were in business under Blair/Brown and made money Worked hard for it too. That's why we were able to retire early. But we made money via property deals under Thatcher too. Many people didn't however. That's when the growth of the underclass began.
We are now losing out because of the fall in the value of sterling and low interest rates. I blame the rush by people in all Parties to adopt unsound neo-con economic policies.
B and B may not have your respect and that's fair enough, from your point of view. There are politicians I have no respect for but I don't abuse them in personal terms, that's my point.. I'm no fan of Brown and I think he should announce his early retirement as Labour Leader /PM very soon, as soon as a deal is stitched up however and with whomsoever and we have a Government capable of commanding a majority of the H of C.. He has forfeited the right to continue as PM.
But not giving respect is one thing and personal abuse is another.


----------



## mrypg9

Jo....I've just heard on BBC 24 that Alistair Darling who is still Chancellor and attended the meeting of European Leaders has said that Britain should not contribute to the bail-out, it should be up to euro zone countries to contribute.
*Should* is not the same as *would,* admittedly, but it shows that the Telegraph was beating its usual anti-EU drum and the story was just.....a story.
This is what I would like to see happen:
Brown commits to resignation before the election, agreees to an election within the year,forms 'traffic light coalition' with Lib Dems, Greens, PC, Scots Nats, SDLP, etc. Labour choose another Leader, commit to their Manifesto promise to introduce a referendum on PR and give it full support. They agree to campaign with the Lib Dems on this.. 
This is not the most desirable outcome but the one which reflects the outcome of the popular vote.
Man U didn't make it alas but Spurs are in Europe so there are reasons to be cheerful!!!!

BTW, a wonderful moment this morning, watching that 'Big Question' programme on BBC. Ann Leslie was saying how bad PR would be, how it would lead to BNP being in Parliament, went on to say that under PR Austria had neo-Nazis in their Parliament....a member of the audience shouted'Yes and Cameron has taken his MEPs into the EuroParliament Group they sit in'.....


----------



## dunmovin

how quickly you forget Brown's biggot jibe at a voter who asked about his policy on immigration. Was that not personal abuse? Or his "diatribe" or rant to Clegg?

sorry we can't agree on this, but those two cost me tens of thousands and I have got the right to be bitter and if you want me to show either of them respect, convince them to pay me back.


----------



## jojo

I really enjoy a good debate and discussion, especially on this one as its so topical and will affect us all, altho I'm not posting on it I am avidly reading it. But dont let it get nasty will you!!!!!Cos in the end we have to agree to disagree!!!


Jo xxxx


----------



## littleredrooster

dunmovin said:


> how quickly you forget Brown's biggot jibe at a voter who asked about his policy on immigration. Was that not personal abuse? Or his "diatribe" or rant to Clegg?
> 
> sorry we can't agree on this, but those two cost me tens of thousands and I have got the right to be bitter and if you want me to show either of them respect, convince them to pay me back.


In my opinion the sooner Brown is confined to the history books the better.
If not entirely responsible for the present mess he has made a large contribution, as did Blair. Had they been regulating affairs properly in the city as they claimed at the time,much earlier action could have been taken to avoid the worst of the tragedy.
However my other gripe with Brown is simply that he is not a fit person to be in high office.
We have all heard the stories of his angry rages against his own staff in his office and in his car,down the tel.line to Clegg and with regard to Gillian Duffy.
His response to her showed once and for all just what an arrogant two-faced character he truly is and I find it amazing that anyone could even go along and vote for him let alone attempt to defend his character.
For him to bring a sleezeball like Mandleson back was the last straw.
With two guys like that in high office how can anyone ever seriously begin to believe their false promises about an end to cheating and corruption?


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> how quickly you forget Brown's biggot jibe at a voter who asked about his policy on immigration. Was that not personal abuse? Or his "diatribe" or rant to Clegg?
> 
> sorry we can't agree on this, but those two cost me tens of thousands and I have got the right to be bitter and if you want me to show either of them respect, convince them to pay me back.


Yes, it was and that is my point. I have said many times that Brown's personality and character leave a lot to be desired. I know someone who worked with him and have heard horror stories about how he treated his staff. His *private* 'bigot' remark was very silly but the main mistake was leaving the mike switched on. Private remarks are often stupid and ill-considered. I was in a similar but comparatively unimportant situation once as a candidate when I made a rather unflattering remark about an elector who had been abusive to me whilst being canvassed not knowing that the loudspeaker mike was still on. I didn't apologise, we just accelerated away! As for the diatribe against Clegg: that story originated in The Daily Mail which is to the truth as Herod is to Mothercare. It is a disgraceful rag which has lowered the tone of political discourse in the UK since it supported Hitler in the thirties.
Too much can be made of one politician's failings though. When in Prague I knew a woman who had worked as John Major's constituency secretary and she had some tales to tell about Conservative MPs.
Sleaze is not confined to one Party. Derek Conway, the gruesome Hamiltons, Aitken, Archer......the words 'stones glasshouses throw living people shouldn't etc.' could be put in some coherent order here by anyone claiming Labour has a monopoly of vice.There are decent people in all parties just as there are rogues.
Rooster: yes, I agree with much of what you say. Brown made some spectacular misjudgments that have contributed to the mess we're in as well as pursuing policies such as PFI and I'm not so sure giving the BoE independence was a sound idea either . Neither has Labour translated extra cash into positive outcomes especially in education. One in every five households has someone of working age on welfare. As for Iraq...
But very many people, especially the lower-paid, benefitted under Labour. Hospital waiting lists went from eighteen months to eighteen weeks. Just a couple of positive outcomes. More could have been done, though, I agree.
The biased and inaccurate reporting by so-called newspapers such as The Mail -the Tory equivalent of The Morning Star -is nothing short of a disgrace.
Readers were told in a headline today that Darling had committed the UK to a £43 billion rescue package for the euro bail-out. Reading the small print we learn that £8 billion has been suggested as a loan. The true situation was put to those who bothered to read the posts in response to the article as follows:Read the comments which go into a bit more detail about how this happened. 


*Darling 'agreed' to nothing as such, this measure is forced through by the EU due to a clause (disaster provision?!?) in the Lisbon treaty which allows for rulings with only a 'majority'. Therefore with the 16 members having the Euro, ie. Euro zone members, they agreed it on Saturday then told the rest of the EU on Sunday that it was a 'done deal' and there was no point in opposing it as it would get approved anyway. 
Of course Darling rolls over and plays dead. No surprise there. What he lacked the courage to do is say "this is unacceptable, if we are forced into this we will put a referendum on EU membership to our country", again, no surprise there. Doubt Vince Cable or Osbourne would have done any different. 
It is only a problem if they default on the loans, but that is a *huge* risk, or 'exposure' as they call it.

Read more: Alistair Darling agrees £43bn UK bill to save Euro | Mail Online*


I like my politics free from personal abuse and relecting the truth.
Still a dreamer after all these years...
And I'm not sure we disagree about much apart from calling GB a moron. Go for the policies not the person is all I'm asking for and there's plenty to fasten on there.
And what went wrong with Spurs yesterday???? Their European tour could be very short...


----------



## JBODEN

GB resigning leadership of LP!!


----------



## jojo

JBODEN said:


> GB resigning leadership of LP!!



Yes, thats gonna be an interesting one! What now??

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Yes, thats gonna be an interesting one! What now??
> 
> Jo xxx



Maybe what I predicted a couple of days ago..... Brown will lead a 'traffic-light' coalition and form a Government with an early election. This will give him a large enough working majority. He will make good on his Manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on PR. Labour/LibDems will fight on joint platform and win the election. 
If the country votes for PR, I predict: the Tory Party as we know it now will never form a Government again. Labour will split and the left-wing will form a socialist party. The remainder of Labour may join with the LibDems and some Tories to form a Social Democrat Party (which I would vote for ) The Tories will split likewise and there will be a Tory Group of the right - not sure what it will call itself.
Some people may think this is undemocratic but:
1) Brown cannot resign as PM until he can tell the Queen who to send for and Cameron, who was given first chance to form a Government, has as yet been unable to do so.
2) The Tories got 36% of the popular vote, the 'traffic lights' nearly all of the other 64%. It was clear that the electorate wanted a coalition otherwise Cameron would have won
3) Brown is every much as legitimate a PM as Cameron would be in this situation - in fact more so as he can seemingly command a majority in Parliament. Both he and Cameron were elected by their respective Parties to be Leaders. Brown was elected nem con which is a valid, legitimate result. Cameron beat Davis.

I further predict:
much rage and frothing from The Daily Mail, Sun et al. and...
a great wave of anger against Cameron from the Tory right - it's already started. and...
the markets will stabilise when a deal is announced - they already have, to some extent.

I would be fairly happy to see the 'traffic light coalition' plus Brown's departure as I am worried that severe cuts too soon may send us into a double-dip recession.
I am also happy that the Lib Dems will cut back the excessive bloating of the public sector and the poor targetting of the resources spent on health and above all education. I hope that all those on benefits able to work will be made to do socially-useful work for their hand-outs until they get 'proper' jobs.

But all this may change by tomorrow
AS the Chinese proverb wishes, we live in interesting times, indeed!


----------



## dunmovin

jojo said:


> Yes, thats gonna be an interesting one! What now??
> 
> Jo xxx


He wants to stay on until September, then hand over to a new leader. Opinion of the media is that it's a tactic to head -off the chance of conservative /libdem coalition. Which will bring the UK back to the situation of having a PM that was not elected as such.


----------



## gus-lopez

The trouble is they are all angling for what's in it for them & their party , rather than what can they do to get the country out of this mess ? They should be more concerned that the 36% that didn't vote, 26 million +, who for various reasons don't want any of them, including 80% of the countries servicemen who are denied the right to vote due to the need for them to register every year, or those who by no fault of their own this year were denied the right to vote, don't rise up against the whole system, I'm surprised that they haven't already. I've expected a 'mad-max situation' for many years & can't believe it hasn't arisen yet !


----------



## JBODEN

gus-lopez said:


> They should be more concerned that the 36% that didn't vote,


That's approx. 16 mln., but 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink'. We can assume that many didn't vote because of sheer apathy. That is probably because the proposals of the various Parties are so boring. They just don't seem to have any fresh ideas.


----------



## gus-lopez

JBODEN said:


> That's approx. 16 mln., but 'you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink'. We can assume that many didn't vote because of sheer apathy. That is probably because the proposals of the various Parties are so boring. They just don't seem to have any fresh ideas.


Well we 're both incorrect here your 16 mil. will only give a population of 45million & mine 72 million when the actual,official 2009 fig. is 62 million. So we got 22mill. not voting. Personally I think it should be compulsory in the interests of the country but that's not likely to happen as it does not benefit the main parties. The days are long gone when politics were a vocation, now it's just a job.


----------



## littleredrooster

gus-lopez said:


> Well we 're both incorrect here your 16 mil. will only give a population of 45million & mine 72 million when the actual,official 2009 fig. is 62 million. So we got 22mill. not voting. Personally I think it should be compulsory in the interests of the country but that's not likely to happen as it does not benefit the main parties. The days are long gone when politics were a vocation, now it's just a job.


Whats the point in forcing ppl.to vote who have absolutely no interest in politics,no knowledge of politics, and probably wouldn't even recognise Gordon Brown from Mr Bean?
No matter who is up for election, there will always be a sizeable minority that have virtually no interest at all. Sadly thats just the way it is.
Therefore its surely better to consider the respective percentages in relation to the ones who did take an interest and did cast their votes for whatever party.


----------



## JBODEN

gus-lopez said:


> Well we 're both incorrect here your 16 mil. will only give a population of 45million & mine 72 million when the actual,official 2009 fig. is 62 million. So we got 22mill. not voting. Personally I think it should be compulsory in the interests of the country but that's not likely to happen as it does not benefit the main parties. The days are long gone when politics were a vocation, now it's just a job.


The population includes people under age and therefore not able to vote. 
See results at BBC NEWS | Election 2010 | Results | United Kingdom - National Results

29.65 mln voted = 65.1% 
Therefore total voting population 45.55 mln. (29.65 /.651)
34.9% of 45.55 = 15.9 mln.

Interestingly of the 45.55 enfranchised
Con rec'd 23.5%
Lab rec'd 18.9%
Lib rec'd 14.9%

Compulsory voting! I remember our French teacher who (in the 60's) had to go to his Embassy and vote because it was compulsory in France. If he didn't then he could have been fined or jailed (I can't remember which). I think that it would be a good idea. I bet you that the 16 mln non-voters are the most vocal in their negative opinions.
PS In Poland, a few years ago, when the PiS Party got into power and made a complete mess of governing I couldn't find one person (mother-in-law excepted) who would admit to having voted for them!


----------



## mrypg9

littleredrooster said:


> Whats the point in forcing ppl.to vote who have absolutely no interest in politics,no knowledge of politics, and probably wouldn't even recognise Gordon Brown from Mr Bean?
> No matter who is up for election, there will always be a sizeable minority that have virtually no interest at all. Sadly thats just the way it is.
> Therefore its surely better to consider the respective percentages in relation to the ones who did take an interest and did cast their votes for whatever party.


You are absolutely right. In a democracy the right not to vote goes with the right to vote. (Although I found this extremely frustrating when I was politically active).
But let's be blunt: many of those who voted wouldn't have recognised Mr. Brown from Mr. Bean or Mr. Cameron from Charlie Chaplin and until those debates hardly anyone had taken any notice at all of Mr. Clegg. I wonder what % of those who voted had read the parties' manifestos? But knowledge and judgment are not tested when you get the right to vote.
I think that we have to face up to the fact that we are playing a new political game. The inconclusive result of this election has delivered an outcome that can only be *practically* resolved by adopting a 'PR' outcome. Percentages must matter. Labour lost: fact. Tories didn't win:fact. LibDem policies are too divergent from those of the Tories, closer to Labour, especially with GB out of the picture. There is a clear anti-Tory majority. (There is a clear anti-Labour majority too but in a situation like this, policies matter and there was a popular majority for policies which were largely opposed to those of the Tories.
One thing is clear, though: if Lab/LibDem coalition results from all this negotiation, Labour MUST go into the next election with a new Leader elected under the Party rules - the same rules as those of the Conservatives. Anything less would be profoundly undemocratic.
But this is going to happen anyway as there is a 90% chance of an election in, say, October. Labour will have a new Leader by then.
PR is coming, whether AV or STV. Can't say I'm happy about that, all systems have good and bad points, I'll have to read up more on the pros and cons.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Compulsory voting! I remember our French teacher who (in the 60's) had to go to his Embassy and vote because it was compulsory in France. If he didn't then he could have been fined or jailed (I can't remember which). I think that it would be a good idea. I bet you that the 16 mln non-voters are the most vocal in their negative opinions.
> PS In Poland, a few years ago, when the PiS Party got into power and made a complete mess of governing I couldn't find one person (mother-in-law excepted) who would admit to having voted for them!


I didn't know voting was compulsory in France? I think it might be an idea to make it compulsory to actually go to the polling station and take a ballot paper on which you can write whatever you like as you can make people actually vote in a secret ballot. So you could write what you thought of the candidates instead of putting a x, as I did the last time I voted in the UK.
There were some weirdos in PiS, weren't there? (Unfortunate acronym). When I was involved with Education International we had correspondence with the Education Minister who stated, amongst other loony things, that Teletubbies encouraged homosexuality because one of the 'male' characters carried what looked like a handbag....
But maybe we should all relocate to Poland as it now has a stable centre-right Government and the only economy in Europe reporting steady growth.
Mam pravdu?


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> He wants to stay on until September, then hand over to a new leader. Opinion of the media is that it's a tactic to head -off the chance of conservative /libdem coalition. Which will bring the UK back to the situation of having a PM that was not elected as such.


The Lib Dems have been having secret meetings with Labour since Day One. Reading their two manifestos make it blindingly obvious that their policies are closer than those of the LibDems and Tories. That coalition could not work.
I'm curious as to how you see Cameron as having been 'elected' whereas you see Brown as 'unelected'. Could you please elaborate?  I have explained that both were elected Leaders of their Parties according to their Constitutions. It is not unusual in British politics for aPM to resign and hand over to a new PM without an election: Major, Churchill, Callaghan come to mind immediately and there are others.
It seems hard for some people to accept that whilst Labour lost, the Tories did not win. If they had, we wouldn't be in this situation, would we?
As for the media...which media? Well, it depends on their political standpoint,doesn't it? The Daily Mirror is the only Labour-supporting newspaper, most of the media have obeyed their paymasters' dictates and supported the Tories. So what else can we expect from them?
As long as Labour goes into the next election with a new Leader, normal democratic procedures will have been followed yet again. The next general election will be held after a new Leader has been elected - I put money on October -so the question won't arise.
We'd better all get used to this kind of post-election manoeuvering as I see it becoming a feature of the UK political scene.


----------



## mrypg9

Not all the media approve of DC::
*



If it is true that David Cameron has reacted to Nick Clegg's latest overture to Labour by agreeing to a whipped vote on a referendum on "proportional representation" -- it would mean that he and his team are not just unprincipled but also foolish.

Not only can there be no going back on that capitulation if Clegg comes back to the bargaining table with the Tories, the Lib Dems can now use that ill-judged maximum concession to extort more a extreme one from Labour. 

Indeed they can be sure that whatever other concessions they are or are not able to extort from either main party - a freeze on Trident, a ban on nuclear power, an immigration amnesty, immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan - they will have achieved their most important aim.

And the Cameroons no longer have any leverage at all. Having caved on the question of the country's ancient electoral system for the sake of office, they can hardly stand on principle if the LibDems demand even bigger surrenders. 

It is true that the LibDems would prefer the simple imposition of "electoral reform" on an electorate that has given no mandate for any such thing. But the referendum that a Lib-Con coalition would now have to hold, could well succeed, especially as "electoral reform" would likely have the backing of the fourth party - the BBC. That would mean the end of a Tory party in its present form. 

David Cameron is apparently willing to put his ambition to be Prime Minister before his party and more important before his country. Indeed at this point it is hard to imagine what principle he wouldn't surrender in order to get to number10. Whatever happens as a result of this week's negotiations this apparent desperation and this cynicism are likely to be remembered by the voting public if another election is called in the next few months and it will not help the conservative cause*.

From Standpoint, independent magazine.


----------



## gus-lopez

So if the lib-dems do a deal with the labour party they will still need @ least 10 of the independents to have a majority in parliament. How many will go with them ? I suppose plaid cymru, the sdlp, & the snp would back it , as long as there was something in it for them !


----------



## dunmovin

gus-lopez said:


> *So if the lib-dems do a deal with the labour party they will still need @ least 10 of the independents to have a majority in parliament.* How many will go with them ? I suppose plaid cymru, the sdlp, & the snp would back it , as long as there was something in it for them !


that concept would make for a government which would be as stable as an inverted pyramid:ranger:


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> that concept would make for a government which would be as stable as an inverted pyramid:ranger:


I can't see how any stable government could emerge from this election result which is why there must be an election later in the year, as happened in 1974.
The 'traffic light' coalition could work as SNP and PC know they will get a worse deal from Cameron than what Labour can offer. Then there's SDLP, Alliance, Green who will go with Labour. DUP have no love for Tories. But someone will have to do something about the huge proportion of the public sector which takes up over 65% of the economy in Wales and N.Ireland.
Does anyone know what Lady Sylvia Hermon has got against the Conservatives, btw? I think her husband was something to do with the Ulster Constabulary.
The electorate have delivered a result which doesn't allow for any stability of any of the permutations. We'd better get used to it as this could be the norm after/if STV PR is introduced.
The people have spoken.
The voice of the people is the voice of God.
As someone said.


----------



## dunmovin

the danger is to labour going with the SNP,is that Salmond would push for a referendum on full Scottish independence, which, if it ever happened would wipe labour off the political map.

As a side issue, those mp's that have a seat in the devolved parliments should have no place in Westminster. IMO develoution was a stupid idea. All it done was add more politicians, create a system where Welsh,Scots and Irishcan have a say in how nation government is run,but deny that government a say in the other parliments and cost the taxpayer more money.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> There were some weirdos in PiS, weren't there? (Unfortunate acronym). When I was involved with Education International we had correspondence with the Education Minister who stated, amongst other loony things, that Teletubbies encouraged homosexuality because one of the 'male' characters carried what looked like a handbag....
> But maybe we should all relocate to Poland as it now has a stable centre-right Government and the only economy in Europe reporting steady growth.
> Mam pravdu?


PiS was formed from a hotchpotch of various political and contested the elections in 2005. The Polish PR rules are such that any Party which didn’t get >5% in the first round of voting would be eliminated and thus would not be able to contest the 2nd (final) round and thus would not have any seats in parliament.
They were lead by Jaroslaw Kaczynski who became Prime Minister, whilst in another election his twin brother, Lech, became President (the one who recently died in an airplane crash and who quite categorically told the public during a TV broadcast, ‘ ‘you will not convince me that white is white and black is black!’’) . 
It wasn’t too long before they started showing visible signs of arrogance toward the electorate (one could feel a dictatorship coming on) and it was fortunate that a few of the minor coalition parties withdrew their support from PIS. In order to remain remain in power they had to do a deal with two opposition parties, which nobody would have wanted to touch with a bargepole, namely an ultra-right wing party (LPR) and a populist farmers party (Samoobrona). Both these Parties had weirdos . The leaders of these minority Parties negotiated themselves posts in government and it was a a member of LPR who …. Well just read on.
The Teletubby Affair 
Ewa Sowinska, who had earlier announced her suspicions about the Teletubby named Tinky Winky, said that her fears had been allayed by an expert. 

"The opinion of a leading sexologist, who maintained that this series has no negative effects on a child's psychology, is perfectly credible," she said in a statement today. 

"As a result I have decided that it is no longer necessary to seek the opinion of other psychologists." 

On Monday, Sowinska, a former lawmaker from the far-right, ultra-Catholic League of Polish Families (LPR), had said she was planning to gather a group of experts to investigate The Teletubbies. 

The plump purple creature Tinky Winky is considered male due to his relative height, but carries a handbag. 

"I have heard that this could be a hidden homosexual insinuation," said Sowinska in an interview published on Monday in the weekly magazine Wprost. 

She subsequently faced widespread criticism and ridicule, even within her own political camp. 

Education Minister and LPR leader Roman Giertych, who is regularly accused of making openly homophobic statements, jokingly swapped his daughter's Teletubby toy for a handbag belonging to a journalist during an interview. 
LPR turned out to have fascist tendencies with members filmed goose stepping and making the Nazi salute ‘seig heil’. Samoobrona turned out to be run by a bunch of sex perverts. In the end PiS was so ridiculed in the Press that public opinion forced it to call a general election which it promptly lost to the collective sighs of one and all. 
Now the good news! Whilst PiS was fighting to stay in power it didn’t have time to look after the County’s economy. As a consequence the economy grew like never before!


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> the danger is to labour going with the SNP,is that Salmond would push for a referendum on full Scottish independence, which, if it ever happened would wipe labour off the political map.
> 
> As a side issue, those mp's that have a seat in the devolved parliments should have no place in Westminster. IMO develoution was a stupid idea. All it done was add more politicians, create a system where Welsh,Scots and Irishcan have a say in how nation government is run,but deny that government a say in the other parliments and cost the taxpayer more money.



Do you think that any UK PM would allow a referendum? And if there were one, would Scottish people vote for independence? My OH is Scottish and against independence.
I agree with you 100% about devolution.  The old 'Lothian Question' that Tam Dalyell used to go on about.... Either we have a federal system with separate Parliaments for each of the four nations plus a federal -type UK Parliament with powers as in the German, US or Canadian models or we have one UK Parliament, full stop, not the absurd situation that you accurately describe.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> PiS was formed from a hotchpotch of various political and contested the elections in 2005. The Polish PR rules are such that any Party which didn’t get >5% in the first round of voting would be eliminated and thus would not be able to contest the 2nd (final) round and thus would not have any seats in parliament.
> They were lead by Jaroslaw Kaczynski who became Prime Minister, whilst in another election his twin brother, Lech, became President (the one who recently died in an airplane crash and who quite categorically told the public during a TV broadcast, ‘ ‘you will not convince me that white is white and black is black!’’) .
> It wasn’t too long before they started showing visible signs of arrogance toward the electorate (one could feel a dictatorship coming on) and it was fortunate that a few of the minor coalition parties withdrew their support from PIS. In order to remain remain in power they had to do a deal with two opposition parties, which nobody would have wanted to touch with a bargepole, namely an ultra-right wing party (LPR) and a populist farmers party (Samoobrona). Both these Parties had weirdos . The leaders of these minority Parties negotiated themselves posts in government and it was a a member of LPR who …. Well just read on.
> The Teletubby Affair
> Ewa Sowinska, who had earlier announced her suspicions about the Teletubby named Tinky Winky, said that her fears had been allayed by an expert.
> 
> "The opinion of a leading sexologist, who maintained that this series has no negative effects on a child's psychology, is perfectly credible," she said in a statement today.
> 
> "As a result I have decided that it is no longer necessary to seek the opinion of other psychologists."
> 
> On Monday, Sowinska, a former lawmaker from the far-right, ultra-Catholic League of Polish Families (LPR), had said she was planning to gather a group of experts to investigate The Teletubbies.
> 
> The plump purple creature Tinky Winky is considered male due to his relative height, but carries a handbag.
> 
> "I have heard that this could be a hidden homosexual insinuation," said Sowinska in an interview published on Monday in the weekly magazine Wprost.
> 
> She subsequently faced widespread criticism and ridicule, even within her own political camp.
> 
> Education Minister and LPR leader Roman Giertych, who is regularly accused of making openly homophobic statements, jokingly swapped his daughter's Teletubby toy for a handbag belonging to a journalist during an interview.
> LPR turned out to have fascist tendencies with members filmed goose stepping and making the Nazi salute ‘seig heil’. Samoobrona turned out to be run by a bunch of sex perverts. In the end PiS was so ridiculed in the Press that public opinion forced it to call a general election which it promptly lost to the collective sighs of one and all.
> Now the good news! Whilst PiS was fighting to stay in power it didn’t have time to look after the County’s economy. As a consequence the economy grew like never before!


Thanks for that. You couldn't make it up if you tried!
And Cameron has taken the Conservative Group in the European Parliament into the grouping these loonies sit in, alongside other odditiues such as Austrian and Latvian Nazis, Czech climate-change deniers, etc.. No wonder the former Tory MEP Leader McMillan -Scott resigned in protest and joined the Lib Dems.
Do you know anything about a horrible Polish Catholic radio station called Radio Marya? 
The church I went to in Skawina had posters advertising it outside. Someone told me it was horribly anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic. Was it connected with PiS?


----------



## mrypg9

Latest news 3.45 pm : Labour revolt wrecks Lib/Lab deal.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> Do you know anything about a horrible Polish Catholic radio station called Radio Marya?


Do I! Read the following.
Poland?s Radio Maryja Known For Its Bigotry, and Its Influence ? Forward.com
Rydzyk thought himself as the king maker of PiS - meddling in politics and steering his audience (mostly poor, ignorant, god-fearing country folk) to vote in the way he dictated.
He called the Presidents wife a *witch *(she also died in the recent airplane crash) but the President, instead of boycotting him, acted as if nothing had happened - to his eternal shame. Both his 'witch' outburst and anti-semitic retoric were secretly recorded and given to the media to publish. Amazingly even the Pope couldn't bring him to heel.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Do I! Read the following.
> Poland?s Radio Maryja Known For Its Bigotry, and Its Influence ? Forward.com
> Rydzyk thought himself as the king maker of PiS - meddling in politics and steering his audience (mostly poor, ignorant, god-fearing country folk) to vote in the way he dictated.
> He called the Presidents wife a *witch *(she also died in the recent airplane crash) but the President, instead of boycotting him, acted as if nothing had happened - to his eternal shame. Both his 'witch' outburst and anti-semitic retoric were secretly recorded and given to the media to publish. Amazingly even the Pope couldn't bring him to heel.


A very interesting - and alarming -article. I didn't realise that Radio Maryja was so influential. 
You probably know that Skawina is virtually a suburb of Krakow, 40000 population, many unemployed and a poor area. The church was *full *for 06.00 Mass. I was staying in accommodation attached to the church and the bloody bells woke me up at 05.45 so I decided to go to Mass to see how many fanatics were up at that ungodly hour. Half of Skawina, it seemed.
If churches in areas like that support that kind of bigotry, it's very worrying.
Oswiencim is, what, 30 km away???


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> Oswiencim is, what, 30 km away???


Yes I know where Oswiecim is. My uncle died there. Then it was taken over by the Jewish marketing machine and made into their exclusive place of martyrology.
Before WWII Poland was a very anti-semitic Country because of the perceived arrogance of the followers of Moses. In fact the majority of Jews were very poor but the few rich families created bad PR. 
What were you doing in Skawina (I think I may have asked this ? already)?


----------



## littleredrooster

Looks like its all happening and the good news is that Brown is believed to be already packing his bags.
Hope he's got that snake Mandleson inside one of them.


----------



## JBODEN

It's interesting watching the LD shuffling back & forth trying to get the best deal for themselves (and their voters). A Con MP actually made a disparaging remark that the Libs were pontificating about doing what's right for the Country when in fact they are on a horse called 'what's in it for me. Is he naive or wot!
I think that this could blow up in the Libs face. I think that they will be 'used' short term, then they will be 'abused' (the Cons will explain to the public that all the economic woes are the fault of the Libs, who won't allow them to pass the necessary legislation) and, when the time is right (i.e. when Cons war chest is brimming) the Cons will throw them out and call another election.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Yes I know where Oswiecim is. My uncle died there. Then it was taken over by the Jewish marketing machine and made into their exclusive place of martyrology.
> Before WWII Poland was a very anti-semitic Country because of the perceived arrogance of the followers of Moses. In fact the majority of Jews were very poor but the few rich families created bad PR.
> What were you doing in Skawina (I think I may have asked this ? already)?


I've spent a lot of time in Poland over my lifetime, it's a beautiful country. Places I've spent considerable time in are only Krakow, Skawina and up a mountain called Baba Gora or similar near a place called in English 'Howling Wolves' so I don't know much about the rest of this vast country. I've been to Warsaw a couple of times. I was recently involved in work with Polish educational unions.
In the UK I had loads of Polish friends, Jewish and non-Jewish. Yes, few people realise that non-Jews were also murdered in the death camps. Socialists,Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Trades Unionists,Roma, Sinti, gays and lesbians and of course Polish patriots of all persuasions, all were victims. All this is too often ignored, forgotten or simply unknown.
I stayed with an elderly woman in Krakow thirty years ago who lived in one small room of a six room communal apartment, which had once been a bourgeois family's flat. There was a communal kitchen, loo and 'bathroom' -the bath pipes had been sawn off just before the place where the taps were fixed. It was unspeakable. There were fleas everywhere, including inevitably on me. The woman's daughter had gassed herself in that very room the woman slept, cooked, ate and lived in. In 1939 the woman's husband, who had been a left-leaning Professor at the Jagellion (excuse spelling) University, was rounded up with other academics, politicians, community leaders etc. and shot.
I think the mountain was near a place called Makow Pod Halanski or something like that? I also spent a month in Zakopane.......wybornie!!!


----------



## mrypg9

littleredrooster said:


> Looks like its all happening and the good news is that Brown is believed to be already packing his bags.
> Hope he's got that snake Mandleson inside one of them.


If Brown is moving out then someone must have agreed a deal. Haven't read that anywhere.
Just out of interest: why is Mandelson so unappealing to you? In what way is he worse than, say, the Conways, Archer, Aitken and co.?
I've no particular liking for him, it's just that the right-wing media have demonised him so much that I'm begonning to think he must be OK!


----------



## JBODEN

littleredrooster said:


> .. that snake Mandleson ...


I presume that this isn't the same as calling GB a moron !


----------



## jojo

I'm sick of it all. I was talking to someone earlier who just said that none of theses so called party leaders are interested in policies or the country. All they care about is themselves. For me that summed it up. This fiasco, if its done nothing else, has shown the various leaders in their "true colours"!!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## JBODEN

jojo said:


> All they care about is themselves.


A quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> I'm sick of it all. I was talking to someone earlier who just said that none of theses so called party leaders are interested in policies or the country. All they care about is themselves. For me that summed it up. This fiasco, if its done nothing else, has shown the various leaders in their "true colours"!!!!
> 
> Jo xxx


That's true of some of them but I don't believe it to be true of Cameron, Brown or Clegg and most of the others involved. 
They sincerely believe that they are working for the good of the country. They're certainly not in it for the money. Brown isn't like Blair, he won't devote himself to making pots of money when he steps down. His salary as PM was less than my dil and loads of other people in business/law/finance etc. earn - and she goes home at 5pm!
They've just spent days arguing about.....policies.
When I was involved in politics I really thought I could help make the world a better place. Well, it's now worse than it was when I first got involved and I hope I didn't contribute to that.......
I'm not sick of it....yet....but then it's too cold to laze by the pool so I'm indoors reading the latest news non-stop. If it were sunny I'd icertainly gnore most of it in favour of a good book and the sun block.
But I don't think I'll take on a career as political pundit as my forecasts seem to be way off-beam.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> I presume that this isn't the same as calling GB a moron !


Interesting one, that. Snakes make nice pets, Ive been told, some are quite cuddly!
It's a bit like the 'bigot' furore. The word 'bigot' isn't an insult in itself, it's descriptive. So if Gillian Duffy had said something racist then yes, calling her a bigot would have been fair enough.
Incidentally, did you know that she was until last week a life-long Labour supporter and Trades Unionist? The Sun offered her £50k to endorse the Tories but she told them where to stick their money.
Mrs. D. for PM?


----------



## JBODEN

Maybe the LD shouldn't form a coalition but let the Cons form a Government and vote for positive policies and veto negative policies. That should keep the Cons on the straight & narrow for a while.


----------



## mrypg9

littleredrooster said:


> Looks like its all happening and the good news is that Brown is believed to be already packing his bags.
> Hope he's got that snake Mandleson inside one of them.


From The Guardian:

*Isn't 24-hour news mad? Earlier I mentioned Laura Kuenssberg's observation that hold-alls were being loaded into a car at the back of Downing Street (4pm). She suggested that it might be a sign the Browns were leaving. A few minutes late the BBC reported that they did not belong to the Browns. Then someone suggested they might belong to the Darlings. Now Jon Sopel has said that they weren't the Darlings' either. It turns out they contained police kit.*


----------



## jojo

Maybe the cons should let the lib/lab just get on with it, make a mess and then take a landslide victory in October! 

Jo xxx


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> The word 'bigot' isn't an insult in itself, it's descriptive.


Wikipedea: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and *animosity toward those of differing opinion*. 
Since GB didn't like what Ms Duffy had to say maybe defacto he was the bigot.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Wikipedea: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and *animosity toward those of differing opinion*.
> Since GB didn't like what Ms Duffy had to say maybe defacto he was the bigot.


IBy that definition, yes, he was. No arguing with the dictionary.


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Maybe the cons should let the lib/lab just get on with it, make a mess and then take a landslide victory in October!
> 
> Jo xxx


More likely to be the other way round, it seems. Labour MPs seem to have scuppered the 'traffic light' coalition. Sensible from their viewpoint as there are stormy times ahead. They will escape the blame.
Maybe the alliance with the Lib Dems will temper the Tories proposed deep and swift cuts policy. That imo could lead us into the mess of a double-dip recession.
That kind of policy worsened the Asian crisis in the '90s. Ireland cut deep and swift and its GDP fell by 2.3% in the fourth quarter of the year. Latvia did similarly and its GDP fell by 18% last year. The IMF has changed its tune on austerity and has supported fiscal stimulus packages to deal with the crisis.
Greece is an extreme case, not to be compared to the UK. Our debt has long-term maturity. Theirs doesn't and the public sector is bloated and inefficient, far more so than ours could ever be described.
The only reason I don't want the Tories in power without the LibDems reining them in now is that I fear they may on their own take economic measures which will harm the fragile recovery.
I bet your OH doesn't see the Lib Dems as honourable any more, Jo,seeing as how the LibDem team was secretly dealing with Labour while in 'public' talks with the Tories.
A bit sneaky....but that's politicians for you.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> IBy that definition, yes, he was. No arguing with the dictionary.


Another definition.
Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma.

In the good old days Ms D would have been burned at the stake, as a heretic!


----------



## JBODEN

Sterling vs Euro 1.175 !!!! Something good is coming out of all this. I think that this is a positive reaction to the fact that the Labs have decided not to continue talking to the Libs.


----------



## mrypg9

What about this?

From The Guardian (supported LibDems)


*Conservatives go all-out to get David Cameron into Downing Street Operation Save Dave: the Conservatives are throwing everything at Nick Clegg to get their man into No 10

David Cameron and George Osborne believe the Tory leader must be installed in No 10 to shore up his authority. *

Amid all the excitement at Westminster, one question has been rather overlooked. Why has David Cameron thrown everything at Nick Clegg to seal a deal with the Liberal Democrats?

The Tory leader regards the Lib Dems as something of a political joke on the grounds that they say one thing in one part of the country and something completely different elsewhere. And yet he has invited them to join the cabinet.

Cameron is a passionate believer in the first-past-the-post electoral system. Yet he has offered the Lib Dems a referendum on introducing the alternative vote system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference.

Amid that background you might think that Cameron would be tempted simply to face down the Lib Dems and try to form a minority government with no outside support. Instead he has made a "big, open and comprehensive offer" that has gone far further than he imagined when he first started wooing Clegg on Friday.

There is a very simple reason why Cameron is rushing up the aisle with such great enthusiasm: he has been weakened by his failure to win the election and simply must make it to No 10 if his leadership is to be safe. One veteran Tory explained the thinking behind "Operation Save Dave" which is being run by his closest lieutenant George Osborne:

_All that matters is getting David into No 10. Then we can work out what we need to do._

Cameron needs the authority of being prime minister because MPs across the party are dismayed at his failure to win the election. They believe that victory was being handed to the party on a plate, but the Tory leader threw it away after basing the campaign on the "big society", which crashed on the doorstep.

Tory MPs believe that Cameron has handled himself with distinction since Friday. But one senior Conservative MP gave me a taste of the anger at Cameron' election performance in which he won 36% of the vote – around four points more than the 32.3% won by Michael Howard in 2005.

The MP, some of whose remarks appeared in my story on last night's meeting of the Tory parliamentary party, told me:

_I do not buy the argument that we have done well by adding more than 90 seats. We were starting from such a low base. A muppet could have put 4% on Michael Howard's share of the vote. We have all been so disciplined. They have been all over the place on the economy. We kept quiet because they said we know how to win.

They said the California-isation of the party and the modernisation of the party is the way to win. It's all complete crap. What wins is being Conservative. It should not have been the Big Society. It should be about choice. We picked up some good wins after talking about Europe and immigration in the last few days.

No way can we agree to AV. Look how many Tory MPs have less than 50 per cent of the vote. They would be toast and so would the Tory party. Has anyone asked Margaret what she thinks? I shudder to imagine her answer._

As I write it looks like the Lib Dems are following their heads, rather than their hearts, and are inching towards a deal with the Conservatives. Vince Cable, their Treasury spokesman and deputy leader, is said to have made a decisive intervention at last night's meeting of the Lib Dem parliamentary party.

Cable reportedly said that, as a former Labour party member, his preference would be to join forces with Labour. But he said that the parliamentary arithmetic meant that was not realistic.

A Lib-Con coalition will look fine on paper because Clegg and Cameron would enjoy a healthy parliamentary majority. But both their parties will be wary.


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> Another definition.
> Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma.
> 
> In the good old days Ms D would have been burned at the stake, as a heretic!


She was apparently complaining about all the Poles taking local people's jobs!!!


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> She was apparently complaining about all the Poles taking local people's jobs!!!


BURN THE WITCH!
[Monty Python]


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> BURN THE WITCH!
> [Monty Python]



Now why did I think you might say that???:


----------



## dunmovin

mrypg9 said:


> Do you think that any UK PM would allow a referendum? And if there were one, would Scottish people vote for independence? My OH is Scottish and against independence.
> I agree with you 100% about devolution.  The old 'Lothian Question' that Tam Dalyell used to go on about.... Either we have a federal system with separate Parliaments for each of the four nations plus a federal -type UK Parliament with powers as in the German, US or Canadian models or we have one UK Parliament, full stop, not the absurd situation that you accurately describe.


Only the totally insane would vote for full independence for Scotland or Wales. I have one relative that is rabid nationalist and the moment she starts on about the subject, I have to leave the room (Blood may be thicker than water, but it boils a damn sight faster) .
As the labour party scrabbles for partners, they just might give that promise.

I am and always will be a Scot and proud of it, but only the terminally stupid can believe Scotland would fair better as an independant nation.


----------



## mrypg9

Looks as if getting a new PM depends on the Queen's bedtime..
Seems it's all over now, Con/Lib Coalition. Historic. Anyone seriously interested in politics will have plenty to enthral them in the coming two years or so. Will the rank and file MPs and Party members support this deal? Will the LibDems soften Tory economic plans? Fascinating stuff.....
It's not the outcome I would have preferred but I wish Cameron and Clegg well. We should be proud of the way we conduct our politics in the UK. The nasty election campaign in the CR is an example of the depths you plumb when ambition, spite and score-settling play a prominent role in political discourse. As I said before, political opponents are merely people with differing political views who should be respected (with a few exceptions).
My OH supports Labour and is pleased that Labour is staying out of it all. That may indeed prove to be the best course for Labour in the medium and long term.
Cuts have to be made and whoever makes them will inevitably be blamed. No way would backbench Labour MPs support a deal with LibDems, that wouldn't have worked.
Next question is: who will the new Labour leader be?
My guess is either David Miliband or Alan Johnson. But I'm a useless predictor, as has been proved.
Harriet Harman has ruled herself out (thank God), I can't stand Ed Balls, Jack Straw lacks charisma and is, frankly, past it.


----------



## mickybob

mrypg9 said:


> Looks as if getting a new PM depends on the Queen's bedtime..
> Seems it's all over now, Con/Lib Coalition. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Yep, he's gone. Just come out of Buckinghan Palace after tendering his resignation. Now the Torys & Lib Dems can now get to work clearing up the mess.


----------



## JBODEN

mickybob said:


> mrypg9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks as if getting a new PM depends on the Queen's bedtime..
> Seems it's all over now, Con/Lib Coalition. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Yep, he's gone. Just come out of Buckinghan Palace after tendering his resignation. Now the Torys & Lib Dems can now get to work clearing up the mess.
> 
> 
> 
> DC has just arrived at the Palace.
Click to expand...


----------



## gus-lopez

Just left as new p.m. so sky says.


----------



## littleredrooster

No doubt lots of happy smiling faces amongst the staff in no.10 now MR.ANGRY has gone.


----------



## dunmovin

littleredrooster said:


> No doubt lots of happy smiling faces amongst the staff in no.10 now MR.ANGRY has gone.


don't know about them, I'm certainly smiling


----------



## jojo

I just hope that this gives the country a bit of hope, optimism and a fresh approach

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

mickybob said:


> mrypg9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks as if getting a new PM depends on the Queen's bedtime..
> Seems it's all over now, Con/Lib Coalition. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Yep, he's gone. Just come out of Buckinghan Palace after tendering his resignation. Now the Torys & Lib Dems can now get to work clearing up the mess.
> 
> 
> 
> Or making it worse......but the Lib Dems should curb any excesses. They will act as a brake.
> You weren't very pleased with the effect of the cuts in Ireland, if I remember. Could be worse in the UK. Tories wanted to do the same in the UK.
> First reports say the Tories have had to yield huge chunks of their Manifesto Programme. No Marriage or Inheritance Taxes, £10k tax threshold, referendum on AV, plus other less prominent issues..
> I subscribe to Conservative Home and many rightwingers are NOT happy.
> 'Clearing up the mess' will be a lengthy process and will depend on factors way beyond the control of any UK Government of any Party.
> I feel sorry for Cameron. This is not a good time to be PM. He seems a decent enough chap, not your backwoodsman type. Judging from some of the posts on Conservative Home he will have to watch his back.
> I think he has been the Neil Kinnock of the Tory Party, marginalising its extremists and bringing it up to date. But unlike Kinnock, he has achieved supreme office.
> Let's hope he can keep the wild men of the right at bay.
Click to expand...


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> don't know about them, I'm certainly smiling


I'm certainly happy that the Tories are in a Coalition - we have a Conservative/Liberal Government, not a Tory Government.
A huge win for the LibDems, not such a happy day for the Tories who expected to walk into No 10 alone.
At one point they had a 24% lead. What do you think went wrong?


----------



## JBODEN

breaking news ......
.... a fox strolled past No. 10, at 05:30 this morning ....


----------



## nigele2

mrypg9 said:


> I think this is the most interesting election for years as the next election could be in a totally different format. So interesting that I'm still lounging in bed watching the BBC lol.. (Have cleaned up though)


Yes I think so too - and I've done a lot of lounging watching it too :couch2:. 

Don't understand the people whinging about the system. The rules are very clear. Just because they don't get their way they snivel that the system is wrong!! Funny how when their party red or blue was in power they didn't fight to change said system  

And quite why anyone expects a diverse multi cultural population as the UK has to find 50+% of people all agreeing on something is I think amazing. But I hope within a few years everyone will be at ease with minority government as it will be the future IMHO.

I thought throughout the last few days a number of statesmen shone and politicians mostly (not all) behaved with dignity. While success of a coalition hangs in the balance we could be witnessing an historic change in thinking. People talking, being tolerant of others views, give and take - the things most of us do to get through life 

Well the UK is well and truely back in growth, the pound stronger, the markets I think will shortly react in a positive manner. The country largely accepts cuts in the public sector are needed. David Cameron can drop some of his less popular policies and blame the Liberals. And vice versa for Nick Clegg. And Labour can get a new leader and hopefully perform their important role as oposition well.

Although the decisions will be tough I can think of worse circumstances to give a coalition a try. I for one am interested and hopefull 

ps. the only law I would like to see is that the press are told that their role is to report, inform, give balanced opinion and NOT tell me how to vote :boxing:


----------



## dunmovin

nigele2 said:


> ps. the only law I would like to see is that the press are told that their role is to report, inform, give balanced opinion and NOT tell me how to vote :boxing:



Motion seconded:clap2:


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> I just hope that this gives the country a bit of hope, optimism and a fresh approach
> 
> Jo xxx


I've thought a lot about this since last night and I think it will but it won't be a smooth ride. Cameron's first public speech as PM included one truly amazing sentence: he said that in the past ten years, Britain had become 'a society more open at home and more compassionate internationally'. He has signalled that there will not be a return to the raw Toryism of the pre-1997 era and whilst this will not please the Tory Right, it's what the public wants and needs to hear.
We may -possibly -be seeing a new era in UK politics, away from adversarial to a more inclusive, collegiate style. Already the language is changing to a more friendly, co-operative tone from all three Parties.
If Cameron, prodded by Clegg, is moving the Tories towards a softer, more centre-right stance, I for one will be delighted and wish him luck - he'll need it.
As for Brown...he behaved properly and with great dignity throughout the negotiations. The vitriol from the Daily Mail was a disgrace to British journalism. As many commentators are now saying, history will be kinder to Gordon Brown than his contemporaries. The general view is that he will be offered many top jobs in voluntary international public service at the highest level, such is the respect for him from many world leaders for his decisive action in leading on the global fiscal stimulus, thus averting bank meltdown.
But he is Yesterday's Man. We have a young, fresh team now leading our Government and politics is going to be very exciting and interesting indeed. I'm waiting eagerly to see exactly what the jointly agreed policies are going to be.
At the moment, it seems the LibDems have got an awful lot from the Tories.
But we shall see.


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> Motion seconded:clap2:


Now go tell that to Rupert Murdoch!!!


----------



## dunmovin

mrypg9 said:


> Now go tell that to Rupert Murdoch!!!


pointless excerise..... Imake my point with Murdoch by not buying his newspapers, just read them on the net for free


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> pointless excerise..... Imake my point with Murdoch by not buying his newspapers, just read them on the net for free


So do I!!! tbh I don't know which paper I'd buy now. I bought The Guardian for over thirty years but it's changed to the point where I feel you have to be under fifty, well-paid, working in the meeja, drink at the Met Bar and live in Camden to be the kind of reader it favours.
Alas I fit none of those criteria.
The Times is the same, substitute Notting Hill for Camden.
So what's left? The Indie, possibly?
I read The Daily Mail online as it's fascinating to read its scare headlines, inaccurate reporting, the once sensible but now seriously odd (not abusive!) Melanie Phillips and its readers' rabid posts. But I wouldn't pay for it and I have to go out and breathe fresh air after I've read it.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> ...: he said that in the past ten years, Britain had ... and more compassionate internationally'.


That's rich! Aren't we in Afghanistan & Irak bombing the sh*t out of the locals?
I hate to think what we would do if we were otherwise.


----------



## nigele2

JBODEN said:


> That's rich! Aren't we in Afghanistan & Irak bombing the sh*t out of the locals?(


No we are not


----------



## mrypg9

Well, Afghanistan and Iraq did cross my mind. We're not in Iraq any more, tho'.
Still in Afghanistan, alas. Not sure how many 'mistakes' we've been responsible for, the Americans have certainly made their fair share, killinmg innocent civilians AND British troops.


----------



## nigele2

I think David Cameron was looking at our approach to the world, our use of diplomacy, the potential level of threat and friendship that the UK transmits. I think our reaction to an Irak situation would be different today than it was 10 years ago. 

If we forget cheap tabloid headline grabbing I think what he said is probably true. I say probably because the UK still has some influence in the world and even subtle support for some regimes or simply turning a blind eye can do serious harm to innocent populations. 

One change I have had first hand experience of in the last 10 years is how our foreign aid is less often project managed by ourselves and is handled by UN and large international aid agencies who often have been present on the ground for some time and have a long term commitment. Someone in the industry suggested to me that this had led to less corruption and less overheads. But who wants good news when you can real out old tabloid headlines


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> I think David Cameron was looking at our approach to the world, our use of diplomacy, the potential level of threat and friendship that the UK transmits. I think our reaction to an Irak situation would be different today than it was 10 years ago.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I think it's called 'soft power' and we still have a lot of that. I don't know how the Tories would have handled Iraq, I guess they would have been as enthusiastic a partner in the 'coalition of the willing' as Blair.
> Imo Cameron's speech was gracious and very appropriate. If he is going to go on like this, I may start to warm to him The poor sod is getting a lot of stick from the backwoodsmen and women on ConservativeHome and other Tory blogs.
> Loads of vitriol directed at him for his 'poor campaign', the LibDem deal, his Cabinet appointments, his yielding of key policy commitments.....and he's not been PM for twenty-four hours yet!!!
> My take on it is that he is astute enough to read the message from the electorate and is steering the Conservatives to the centreground of British politics. He is a decent chap who has taken on the bigots and homophobes in the Party. If his economic strategy succeeds (this is where my doubts creep in) he will be superbly positioned to run for reelection as a modern, progressive Conservative and the Lib Dems will be toast.
> I'm not sure what strategy Labour should adopt....I think they could be forced into a split between the statists on the left and the remnants of New Labour. The public won't vote for a statist Party and why vote New Labour -or Lib Dem -if you have a progressive Tory Party that has provided economic stability?


----------



## littleredrooster

A pleasant and somewhat humorous ceremony for the happy couple today.
Like a breath of fresh air after whats gone before.
Tough times ahead, but lots of encouragement,even the Bank of England Guv. seemed quite impressed.


----------



## nigele2

littleredrooster said:


> A pleasant and somewhat humorous ceremony for the happy couple today.
> Like a breath of fresh air after whats gone before.
> Tough times ahead, but lots of encouragement,even the Bank of England Guv. seemed quite impressed.


Yup nice to see a positive banker 

And in the UK this morning the sun is shining, a beautiful day. A niff of optimism in the air. And the neutrals I have spoken to seem quite pleased. Hopefully as you say mrypg9 dc will be able to keep the party bigots in line and if we get good news over the coming months then that should shut them up.

Nick Clegg will get little stick from his parliamentary party as nearly all of them have been given a job.

Pity there are so few ladies around but I think that is because there are few experienced contenders and nothing to do with machismo.

Anyway I’m hoping god seals the hole in Iceland, BP seal the hole in the bay and DC seals the hole in the economy and we might be able to stay afloat for a while


----------



## jojo

There does seem to be an air of optimism. Maybe a coalition to sort out the huge mess is whats needed. 

Jo xxx


----------



## dunmovin

nigele2 said:


> Pity there are so few ladies around but I think that is because there are few experienced contenders and nothing to do with machismo.


Given the time it takes my wife to decide what she is wants from the shops, the time it takes her to get ready to go out, the fact she insists that I am always wrong, the amount of tries she has at reverse parking...the lack of estorgen in the cabinet might be good thing


----------



## nigele2

jojo said:


> There does seem to be an air of optimism. Maybe a coalition to sort out the huge mess is whats needed.
> 
> Jo xxx


Yes Jo but I do hope Labour (especially with regard to selecting a new leader) show the dignity shown by others, including their last leader, and form a strong united opposition. If the coalition has a strong enemy they can turn their fire power on that instead of in fighting.

A little off topic but how's the weather? Yesterday flights were all over the place and I heard that there were weather problems - and not volcanic problems. The delays between the UK and Spain looked horrendous on the departure boards I saw  Certainly can't have helped the spanish economy!


----------



## JBODEN

nigele2 said:


> If the coalition has a strong enemy they can turn their fire power on that instead of in fighting.



They shouldn't be diverted from their main task of saving the economy. Turning their firepower against the opposition is a total waste of resources. If, on the other hand, the economy was growing then I would advocate that line (like in Poland in 2007/2008, where the Parties where so busy trying to win points against each other that they didn't have time to f%$^&*k up the economy and it grew & grew  )


----------



## jojo

nigele2 said:


> A little off topic but how's the weather? Yesterday flights were all over the place and I heard that there were weather problems - and not volcanic problems. The delays between the UK and Spain looked horrendous on the departure boards I saw  Certainly can't have helped the spanish economy!



The weather's ok here - well its not brilliant, a bit chilly, cloudy and the threat of rain, altho a few sunny spells. I dont think the weather has affected the flights tho. My OH got off on time yesterday lunchtime (Málaga - Gatwick) and he said that there didnt appear to be any of the problems that he'd read about??!!? 

Jo xxx


----------



## jojo

I'll tell you what I think about this whole election/economy business! I think that the media spectulation, stirring, opinions etc should stop for a while now!! IMO they were intstrumental in the whole credit crunch issue, ok, they may not have caused it, but they've sure as hell added to it!

Now is the time that the government get on with governing and steering us all out of this mess and the media can just shut up and not interfere! It just winds everyone up!

There!

Jo xxx


----------



## thrax

jojo said:


> I'll tell you what I think about this whole election/economy business! I think that the media spectulation, stirring, opinions etc should stop for a while now!! IMO they were intstrumental in the whole credit crunch issue, ok, they may not have caused it, but they've sure as hell added to it!
> 
> Now is the time that the government get on with governing and steering us all out of this mess and the media can just shut up and not interfere! It just winds everyone up!
> 
> There!
> 
> Jo xxx


We are told, by the medai, that the televised debates were instrumental in steering the electorate towards a hung parliament (even though it had been predicted 6 months ago). And I keep hearing commentators and politicians say that the debates lead the British voters to decide to give us a hung parliament. Well, I must have missed that massive telephone conference when we all got together and said, 'righty ho me maties, lets screw those politicians and give em what they deserve, so Anne, starting with you, considering where you live you better vote Lib Dem, and Arthur if you vote Labour, the Tories will get in so you better vote Lib Dem too, etc etc' By my calculations this phone call would have taken a little under ten thousand years. Or maybe the voting just happened that way without all of us getting together.

We watched the first five minutes of the first debate and the last five minutes of the last one; I doubt we missed much..


----------



## Joppa

thrax said:


> We are told, by the medai, that the televised debates were instrumental in steering the electorate towards a hung parliament (even though it had been predicted 6 months ago). And I keep hearing commentators and politicians say that the debates lead the British voters to decide to give us a hung parliament. Well, I must have missed that massive telephone conference when we all got together and said, 'righty ho me maties, lets screw those politicians and give em what they deserve, so Anne, starting with you, considering where you live you better vote Lib Dem, and Arthur if you vote Labour, the Tories will get in so you better vote Lib Dem too, etc etc' By my calculations this phone call would have taken a little under ten thousand years. Or maybe the voting just happened that way without all of us getting together.
> 
> We watched the first five minutes of the first debate and the last five minutes of the last one; I doubt we missed much..


I think this whole thing about hung parliament and its aftermath has come as something of a surprise to most voters. OK, no overall majority was predicted but since we haven't had one for 36 years, nobody knew what it was like. Most thought that a minority government would limp on, for 6 months or so, before calling another general election in the hope of getting the majority they require. What came as a surprise was the speed with which this liberal-tory coalition emerged and everyone concerned agreeing with it - we aren't used to seeing politicians agreeing and co-operating - politics has been too confrontational and not consensus-building! Only time will tell whether this 'new politics' as Cameron calls it will last and produce the goods, or end up in acrimony and confusion.

As for why a hung parliament happened, there was of course no nationwide debate about tactical voting. What was true was that there were several deep-seated beliefs. Most people didn't like Gordon Brown, but some also didn't trust Tories and while in popular opinions the Lib-Dems were gaining ground, many thought a vote for them was wasted. In the voting box in the marginals, people had a stark choice between voting for whichever candidate was best placed to beat Labour, not wanting to see a Conservative government under Cameron, and not wanting to waste their vote. So voters were divided and there were some close calls - some hang on to their seats by skin of their teeth while others beat incumbent by a wafer-thin majorities, plus some surprising results. Repeated among 160 or so marginals, you ended up with a hung parliament.


----------



## JBODEN

Joppa said:


> this liberal-tory coalition.


One of the reasons people think that a LD vote is wasted is the fact that the Party hasn't tasted power for approx. 65 years (? I think) and that they have no experience of governing. Maybe the Tories are thinking ''give them some hands-on experience and come the next elections a lot of Lab voters will switch to LD, thus marginalising the Lab Party''.


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> Given the time it takes my wife to decide what she is wants from the shops, the time it takes her to get ready to go out, the fact she insists that I am always wrong, the amount of tries she has at reverse parking...the lack of estorgen in the cabinet might be good thing


I will not give you the pleasure of me using the obvious 's' word in reply to that comment
But there are few experienced and capable women around in politics, that's true, sadly. Cameron has done his best to remedy this -I didn't approve of his 'women only ' shortlist for seat selection -but if they aren't around, what can you do?.
I once had an argument with a colleague about women only shortlists pointing out it might mean that a stupid woman could be chosen to which she replied that stupid men had had it their own way for far too long. She had a point. I like to think I got selected for posts in politics because of some ability, not gender.
In the long run I think we shall see the two major Parties vying for the centre vote. Cameron has infuriated the Tory old guard by abandoning pledges dear to them (Inheritance Tax, referendum on AV, the coalition itself) because he can see that the electorate is no longer tribal. If David Miliband becomes Labour Leader, he has pledged to stand on the centre-left. So where does that leave the minority LibDems?
It seems the electorate is looking for competence and fairness, not ideology and dogma, whether of left or right variety.
I wanted a Lab/LibDem Coalition which didn't happen but I feel optiimistic as above all I wanted a progressive competent administration, committed to fairness (not equality) and economic efficiency and I think we might just have that with the Cameron/Clegg deal.
The Labour Party really needs a spell of opposition to regroup and rethink.
Jo, you are right, as regards the tone of the media. We need to know what our Government is doing so there must be reporting but not of the sensational, biased Mirror, Sun and above all the gutter Daily Mail type.
The Independent and Guardian are the best imo.
Plus various blogs, ConservativeHome etc.


----------



## Joppa

JBODEN said:


> One of the reasons people think that a LD vote is wasted is the fact that the Party hasn't tasted power for approx. 65 years (? I think) and that they have no experience of governing. Maybe the Tories are thinking ''give them some hands-on experience and come the next elections a lot of Lab voters will switch to LD, thus marginalising the Lab Party''.


I think it was less subtle than that. The only way the Tories could form a stable government was to bed in with Lib-Dems, and under Nick Lib-Dems proved to be very pragmatic and open to negotiation. Tories thought that with this coalition they are in a win-win situation. If it proves successful, they can probably command a comfortable majority on their own at next general election scheduled in 2015, and if it all ends in tears, blame it on Liberals and they are confident of winning any snap election (if they lose a vote of confidence by 55%).


----------



## Pesky Wesky

nigele2 said:


> Anyway I’m hoping god seals the hole in Iceland, BP seal the hole in the bay and DC seals the hole in the economy and we might be able to stay afloat for a while


 
Hahaha

Any of that sealant left?? There's a few politican's mouths I'd like to seal over here!!


----------



## JBODEN

Joppa said:


> ... blame it on Liberals ...


Big brother blaming little brother for his own inadequacies? I think that the electorate will side with the underdog in true British style.


----------



## Joppa

JBODEN said:


> Big brother blaming little brother for its own inadequacies? I think that the electorate will side with the underdog in true British style.


Or take a revenge for cozing up to the Tories in the first place!


----------



## JBODEN

Going off the topic for a second what do you think about Zappy proposing a salary cut of 15% for politicians and 5% for civil servants? Wouldn't he had saved more by sacking 15% & 5% respectively?


----------



## JBODEN

Joppa said:


> Or take a revenge for cozing up to the Tories in the first place!


I'm not so sure about that because
1. of the experience gained. 
2. if they hadn't formed a coalition with 'either/or' then the Country would have been forced into another election at a huge cost to the economy. And _that _would have had a negative effect on their image.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

JBODEN said:


> Going of the topic for a second what do you think about Zappy proposing a salary cut of 15% for politicians and 5% for civil servants? Wouldn't he had saved more by sacking 15% & 5% respectively?


I'd prefer to have OH working with a 5% cut in salary than on the dole thank you very much! 
Anyway, I can't see that making thousands of people redundant would help anybody TBH
On the radio people were very much behind the idea, but against freezing pensions which is another Zappy measure that was announced yesterday.
Personally, I think Zappo should have been more on the ball before and should have refused salary rises way before getting to this situation because taking away smth you've given is always worse than not giving it at all.
They are also stopping the cheque bebé which I believe was brought in not too long ago by this very government, wasn't it??


----------



## gus-lopez

Yes, it was only brought in 3 or 4 years ago. Yes, a 5% cut is better than no job! you can't get in the unemployment office here.


----------



## JBODEN

gus-lopez said:


> Yes, it was only brought in 3 or 4 years ago. Yes, a 5% cut is better than no job! you can't get in the unemployment office here.


So it would appear that in a recession it is OK to make in the private sector redundant but making people in the public sector is a no-no. Sacred COWS! 

Don't you think that the State (British, Spanish, etc.) is overloaded with civil servants and that a reduction in staffing is long overdue? 

Reducing staffing is not just saving on salaries; for every Eu 1 paid to the employee a further Eu 1 is expended on costs associated with that person. 
Thus a reduction of 5% in salary is not the same as a 5% reduction in jobs.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

JBODEN said:


> So it would appear that in a recession it is OK to make in the private sector redundant but making people in the public sector is a no-no. Sacred COWS!
> 
> Did I, or anyone else say that????
> I *certainly* didn't. No misquoting, misconstruing or misunderstandings, please. No sacred cows
> 
> Don't you think that the State (British, Spanish, etc.) is overloaded with civil servants and that a reduction in staffing is long overdue?
> 
> In some sections probably true, but do you think there are too many teachers,
> firefighters, doctors...? Did you know that many of these are _*funcionarios*_ in Spain? It's not just bods warming chairs in offices. (Not all state school teachers are funcionarios either. It depends on the kind of contract they are on, OH was explaining to me now, but the explanation didn't get very deep as the siesta was the next job on the list)
> 
> Reducing staffing is not just saving on salaries; for every Eu 1 paid to the employee a further Eu 1 is expended on costs associated with that person.
> Thus a reduction of 5% in salary is not the same as a 5% reduction in jobs.
> 
> Of course the saving isn't the same, but there are other aspects which are taken into consideration alongside the economical; the political for one.


In Spain many are jealous of the funcionario and their general working conditions. (Thinking about the traditional office jobs) The main biggies are the great timetable and the job for life which are undoubtedly very important for most people.
However in other ways their job isn't so great. Cramped, dingy offices in the most part. Antiquated work systems and equipment, bureaucracy, and huge backlogs of work due to the general "bad" working system


----------



## nigele2

JBODEN said:


> Going off the topic for a second what do you think about Zappy proposing a salary cut of 15% for politicians and 5% for civil servants? Wouldn't he had saved more by sacking 15% & 5% respectively?


Interesting defensive move by desperate people but I think ineffective. Spain now is so deep in the pooh I think without growth it will sink into oblivion. In comparison the UK economy has the ability to make the UK debt look like nothing. The Spanish economy needs to expand at a previously unseen rate and even then it would take decades. Sadly without labour reform (and I say this with a large spanish family suffering) there is no hope.

I believe violence will flood on to the streets and a revolution will be needed before things get better. I don’t wish it but I’d certainly participate as I think it is the only way to kill the francoites off. But I hope I’m wrong


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> Interesting defensive move by desperate people but I think ineffective. Spain now is so deep in the pooh I think without growth it will sink into oblivion. In comparison the UK economy has the ability to make the UK debt look like nothing. The Spanish economy needs to expand at a previously unseen rate and even then it would take decades. Sadly without labour reform (and I say this with a large spanish family suffering) there is no hope.
> 
> I believe violence will flood on to the streets and a revolution will be needed before things get better. I don’t wish it but I’d certainly participate as I think it is the only way to kill the francoites off. But I hope I’m wrong


I agree with you that labour reform is essential. The UK debt is long-term not short term like Greece and Spain has a LOW 53% GDP public debt - the IMF reckons 60% is sustainable. The problem isn't the debt, it's the deficit. The UK has a combination of debt and deficit problems but as you say we have a strong economy in the UK. 
I'm interested in your remark about the Francoites - explain more, please and yes, I agree -the only good Falangist is a dead one.....
The UK public sector: yes, we need teachers, nurses, people who actually *do *things. But in the past four years, public sector spending has risen hugely to a point where it is equivalent to more than half the economy in some places - Northern Ireland, over 70%, Wales, over 65%. There is also the vexed question of public sector final salary pension schemes which in effect are subsidised by the private sector as these pension funds arenot invested on the markets. A retired married couple, both in teaching for thirty years plus, both Head Teachers working in London or Manchester, could each receive a pension of nearly £40k a year plus a one-off tax free lump sum of three times the gross annual pension. Heads of Departments could expect a pension of at least £25k gross and a lump sum of £75k. (This is know from personal experience of friends in education). Teacher-managers are not the highest-paid managers in the public sector either.
Whereas private sector employees rarely now enjoy such largesse. This can't be fair.
It cannot be denied that billions more has been spent on education, the NHS etc. but do the improved outcomes reflect these vast sums? In health maybe, as waiting lists have been reduced from eighteen months to eighteen weeks. But certainly not in education, social services etc.
I'd like to see more services put out to franchise to the private sector but not to the lowest tenderer as was the case under Thatcher but with a very specific set of standards to be achieved. Our UK business tendered for and won local authority contracts. A lot more could be put on the market.
To me, the important thing is quality of service and value for money, not who delivers it.


----------



## nigele2

on the UK mrypg9 I think spot on. DC talks about fairness. Happy to give him a year or two but then I would like to see results.



mrypg9 said:


> I'm interested in your remark about the Francoites - explain more, please and yes, I agree -the only good Falangist is a dead one.....


Strangely within my Spanish family there are Franco supporters to this day. They say things like "In those days you could walk the streets in safety". And I think Franco's supporters still hold power in the upper classes.

My wife was given the Franco brain washing in the 60s (including the book "how to run your life"). Glad to say she was a rebel. She was harassed by the guardia for being in groups (i.e. taking a drink with a few mates after work) and thus potentially plotting against the state. A little odd as her father was a guardia but he needed with three kids to make a living like anyone else. 

When Franco died she with friends celebrated in the streets - other parts of the family were sad.

And that I think is the sad history of the civil war. Spanish families were split. Brother fought brother, fathers fought sons. 

And of course at the end of WW2 we, the allies, had no stamina left (quite understandably) , no desire to continue the fight. And the generosity of Mexico meant many republicans couldn't plot a return even if they wanted to. And the others we thanked for their heroics at Narvik and Dunkirk but they were now dissipated and few in number.

I believe the fundamental problem in Spain is that the people had the fight drained from them by Franco, that the Franco power still lurks in the upper echelons of Spanish society, and that regional squabbles weaken serious resistance.

But it’s just a personal view .


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> on the UK mrypg9 I think spot on. DC talks about fairness. Happy to give him a year or two but then I would like to see results.
> 
> 
> 
> Strangely within my Spanish family there are Franco supporters to this day. They say things like "In those days you could walk the streets in safety". And I think Franco's supporters still hold power in the upper classes.
> 
> My wife was given the Franco brain washing in the 60s (including the book "how to run your life"). Glad to say she was a rebel. She was harassed by the guardia for being in groups (i.e. taking a drink with a few mates after work) and thus potentially plotting against the state. A little odd as her father was a guardia but he needed with three kids to make a living like anyone else.
> 
> When Franco died she with friends celebrated in the streets - other parts of the family were sad.
> 
> And that I think is the sad history of the civil war. Spanish families were split. Brother fought brother, fathers fought sons.
> 
> And of course at the end of WW2 we, the allies, had no stamina left (quite understandably) , no desire to continue the fight. And the generosity of Mexico meant many republicans couldn't plot a return even if they wanted to. And the others we thanked for their heroics at Narvik and Dunkirk but they were now dissipated and few in number.
> 
> I believe the fundamental problem in Spain is that the people had the fight drained from them by Franco, that the Franco power still lurks in the upper echelons of Spanish society, and that regional squabbles weaken serious resistance.
> 
> But it’s just a personal view .


No, I think that's perfectly likely to have been the outcome. I've seen the same kind of thing in the CR expressed in a different way. Many older people, whose formative years were spent under communism, have a very fatalistic outlook. A Tesco store opened in our small town and we were thrilled, thinking we'd get quality goods at last. Turned out it had foodstuffs processed in Poland for the Central/Eastern European market.......very poor stuff. When we complained to our Czech friend she told us that we had to understand that even tho' it wasn't good, it was better than what they had before.
That 'it'll do, it's good enough' attitude used to really wind me up. As far as I'm concerned, crap is crap.
The other thing that annoyed me was people's attitude to the police (who were mainly dirty, smelly, ignorant and corrupt). I was always being told 'Well, you must do what the policeman tells you'. In vain did I try to explain that we Brits were used to our police being public servants and that there were not there primarily to tell us what to do but to enforce the law and keep the peace.
As for the term 'public servant'.......the concept didn't exist.
There is a huge generation gap there now and frankly, I'm not surprised and I'm firmly on the side of the young. I'm not exactly young myself but that kind of resigned, sheep-like mentality drives me round the bend.
You have an interesting life, Nigel.


----------



## nigele2

mrypg9 I get on fine with the francoites in the family despite my Republican leanings.

I know two professional flamenco players based in the UK. One very famous in flamenco circles but the other has been on TV. Both get accused in Spain of not being real flamencos and both get accused in the UK of putting on false spanish accents so they appear more spanish. Neither accusation is true.

Both are children of republicans who sent their children to the UK to escape them being francoised.

Nicer generous people you couldn't meet. I mean they have both taken time out to help me with my single string tuneless plucking


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> mrypg9 I get on fine with the francoites in the family despite my Republican leanings.
> 
> I know two professional flamenco players based in the UK. One very famous in flamenco circles but the other has been on TV. Both get accused in Spain of not being real flamencos and both get accused in the UK of putting on false spanish accents so they appear more spanish. Neither accusation is true.
> 
> Both are children of republicans who sent their children to the UK to escape them being francoised.
> 
> Nicer generous people you couldn't meet. I mean they have both taken time out to help me with my single string tuneless plucking


Have you read Hugh Thomas' magisterial book 'The Spanish Civil War'? I think it's generally accepted as one of if not the definitive tome on the subject.
I bought a copy from Amazon, used, for £3.99.

You probably know that Michael Portillo's parents were Republicans who fled in 1939.


----------



## nigele2

mrypg9 said:


> Have you read Hugh Thomas' magisterial book 'The Spanish Civil War'? I think it's generally accepted as one of if not the definitive tome on the subject.
> I bought a copy from Amazon, used, for £3.99.
> 
> You probably know that Michael Portillo's parents were Republicans who fled in 1939.


Don't think I've read that one but many. I'll look it up.

Yes I was glad when Mr Portillo freed up his time and did a tv program going back to his roots. Very interesting.



mrypg9 said:


> You have an interesting life, Nigel.


 Been around a bit yourself I think


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> Don't think I've read that one but many. I'll look it up.
> 
> Yes I was glad when Mr Portillo freed up his time and did a tv program going back to his roots. Very interesting.
> 
> Been around a bit yourself I think


I used to hate him when he was in Parliament but I really like him now..
Yes, I've done a lot of things....most not very well Seems strange just to be an observer now, get my daily fix from posting with people like you
I'm trying to print off the full text of the Conservative/LibDem Agreement, my printer is playing up, tho'. I like to have hard copy of things like that, old habits die hard....
I'm off to pick up my dil from Malaga Airport, 'bye for now, have a nice evening


----------



## dunmovin

mrypg9 said:


> I will not give you the pleasure of me using the obvious 's' word in reply to that comment
> But there are few experienced and capable women around in politics, that's true, sadly. Cameron has done his best to remedy this -I didn't approve of his 'women only ' shortlist for seat selection -but if they aren't around, what can you do?.
> I once had an argument with a colleague about women only shortlists pointing out it might mean that a stupid woman could be chosen to which she replied that stupid men had had it their own way for far too long. She had a point. I like to think I got selected for posts in politics because of some ability, not gender.
> In the long run I think we shall see the two major Parties vying for the centre vote. Cameron has infuriated the Tory old guard by abandoning pledges dear to them (Inheritance Tax, referendum on AV, the coalition itself) because he can see that the electorate is no longer tribal. If David Miliband becomes Labour Leader, he has pledged to stand on the centre-left. So where does that leave the minority LibDems?
> It seems the electorate is looking for competence and fairness, not ideology and dogma, whether of left or right variety.
> I wanted a Lab/LibDem Coalition which didn't happen but I feel optiimistic as above all I wanted a progressive competent administration, committed to fairness (not equality) and economic efficiency and I think we might just have that with the Cameron/Clegg deal.
> The Labour Party really needs a spell of opposition to regroup and rethink.
> Jo, you are right, as regards the tone of the media. We need to know what our Government is doing so there must be reporting but not of the sensational, biased Mirror, Sun and above all the gutter Daily Mail type.
> The Independent and Guardian are the best imo.
> Plus various blogs, ConservativeHome etc.


What "S" word would that be?

there is another sceneario for the future of this coalition, which has already happened before, when the social democrats merged(or got absorbed)by the liberal party, forming the liberal democrats. It will be interesting to see how they work together and who "rules the roost"


----------



## mrypg9

dunmovin said:


> What "S" word would that be?
> 
> there is another sceneario for the future of this coalition, which has already happened before, when the social democrats merged(or got absorbed)by the liberal party, forming the liberal democrats. It will be interesting to see how they work together and who "rules the roost"


Six letters, ending in 't' with an 'x' somewhere......
Everyone's moving to the Centre - Cameron, Clegg and, if Miliband is Leader, Labour too.
Someone's going to get squeezed.
So far I'm happy with what's going on. Family and friends won't be pleased with CGT, Inheritance Tax and higher taxes catching people who own buy to let properties. Cameron has given up an awful lot, tho'. I can understand why Tebbit and Co. are frothing. Ashcroft is launching a detailed inquiry into why the election campaign strategy failed in spite of his £millions and is going to 'name names'.
We live in very interesting times...


----------



## nigele2

mrypg9 said:


> Ashcroft is launching a detailed inquiry into why the election campaign strategy failed in spite of his £millions and is going to 'name names'.
> We live in very interesting times...


 Can I name a name???

I name Lord Ashcroft cause I don't vote for parties funded by tax exiled *****

But I doubt that will be included in the enquiry as a possibility


----------



## mrypg9

nigele2 said:


> Can I name a name???
> 
> I name Lord Ashcroft cause I don't vote for parties funded by tax exiled *****
> 
> But I doubt that will be included in the enquiry as a possibility


Me too
How are political parties funded in Spain, do you know? 
I don't like funding by the mega -rich but then equally I don't like the reliance of Labour on Union money. The big Unions won't want to fund Labour if Miliband moves the party to the centre-left anyway.
My OH says that there is talk of state funding in this new coalition deal - or it has at least been mooted.


----------



## Joppa

mrypg9 said:


> Me too
> How are political parties funded in Spain, do you know?
> I don't like funding by the mega -rich but then equally I don't like the reliance of Labour on Union money. The big Unions won't want to fund Labour if Miliband moves the party to the centre-left anyway.
> My OH says that there is talk of state funding in this new coalition deal - or it has at least been mooted.


I think it's mixed - some state aid for electoral and other expenses, but parties are also free to receive private and corporate donations and raise a levy on membership. I don't know what kind of official check exists on party funding.


----------



## JBODEN

mrypg9 said:


> Me too
> ... there is talk of state funding in this new coalition deal - or it has at least been mooted.


29.65 mln voted = 65.1% 
Therefore total voting population 45.55 mln. (29.65 /.651)
34.9% of 45.55 = 15.9 mln.

Of the 45.55 enfranchised
Con rec'd 23.5%
Lab rec'd 18.9%
Lib rec'd 14.9%

*That could be a contentious issue*. 
i) The 15.9 mln people who didn't vote may be forced to pay into Party coffers. 
ii) On what basis will the Parties receive funding, no. of voters? 
iii) Where will the funds come from, new taxes? [when a household goes over budget it has to reign back or become bankrupt, when a corporation has cashflow problems it has to limit itself or go into liquidation, when the Government overspends it just increases taxes]


----------



## nigele2

JBODEN said:


> *That could be a contentious issue*.


If you can't be contentious here JB then that would be sad 

and just to be contentious 



JBODEN said:


> i) The 15.9 mln people who didn't vote may be forced to pay into Party coffers.


People don't vote for many reasons. You cannot assume a non vote is an anti establishment vote. I don't vote at times but I don't want the wheels to fall off 




JBODEN said:


> ii) On what basis will the Parties receive funding, no. of voters?


OK that's a tricky one but before worrying about how much would it not be better if it was much less? I appreciate easily said but not so easily done. For a start you would have to clamp down on the press.



JBODEN said:


> iii) Where will the funds come from, new taxes? [when a household goes over budget it has to reign back or become bankrupt, when a corporation has cashflow problems it has to limit itself or go into liquidation, when the Government overspends it just increases taxes]


the same is true of the government as we are seeing at the mo. But within the household budget one decides priorities. Surely ensuring fair elections merits some priority?

But anyway clegg and cam are moving towards a fixed 50 year term so we won't have to worry about it for a while


----------



## JBODEN

nigele2 said:


> ... and just to be contentious



Call that contentious ????? :confused2:
Come on, you can do better than that!!!!


----------



## mrypg9

JBODEN said:


> 29.65 mln voted = 65.1%
> Therefore total voting population 45.55 mln. (29.65 /.651)
> 34.9% of 45.55 = 15.9 mln.
> 
> Of the 45.55 enfranchised
> Con rec'd 23.5%
> Lab rec'd 18.9%
> Lib rec'd 14.9%
> 
> *That could be a contentious issue*.
> i) The 15.9 mln people who didn't vote may be forced to pay into Party coffers.
> ii) On what basis will the Parties receive funding, no. of voters?
> iii) Where will the funds come from, new taxes? [when a household goes over budget it has to reign back or become bankrupt, when a corporation has cashflow problems it has to limit itself or go into liquidation, when the Government overspends it just increases taxes]


Yes, those are difficult issues. I have no answers to them as yet but we all pay the salaries of those very clever senior civil servants and Whitehall mandarins whose job it is to come up with solutions to problems like these.


----------



## nigele2

JBODEN said:


> Call that contentious ????? :confused2:
> Come on, you can do better than that!!!!


 JB I'm doing my best


----------

