Re: The UK General Election Thread

by Basil Mon 26 Apr 2010, 01:00

Gary 111 wrote:With a bit of luck the yellow surge will soak us all.....

If Mandy did become PM (which I don't think would happen) would he be the first gay PM in Britain?

A Labour led government with a PM in the Lords? - pigs might fly.

by Merlin Mon 26 Apr 2010, 12:09

JKLever wrote:Anyone watch Cleggs interview with Andrew Marr today?

Quite cleverly, although he didn't say it directly he was saying the only deal with a Labour party which comes in 3rd would be with him as PM.

Bless Nickie Clegg ... he epitomises desperation in his quest for the keys to No 10 ... and all based on what?
A couple of well rehearsed TV appearances where his acting abilities carried him through .... leading a novice pinko party with a host of "wholly unexplained" policies swiftly cobbled together and committed to one glorious European State, whilst being propped up by a deadbeat party which sunk this country for the past 13 years - and moreso over the past 3 of them! begs the question - where will the unelected (nor is he seeking election) Mandy Mandleson fit into all this shuffling for power?

Happy times ahead ! Laughing

by Guest Mon 26 Apr 2010, 12:19

What would you do if you lead the Lib Dems then Merls? Say "Ya know what, we don't have a chance to win, what's the point?".

Criticising him for aiming high is ridiculous to be honest.

by Merlin Mon 26 Apr 2010, 12:42

vilkrang wrote:What would you do if you lead the Lib Dems then Merls? Say "Ya know what, we don't have a chance to win, what's the point?".

Criticising him for aiming high is ridiculous to be honest.

Strive for it by all means vilks - BUT - on your own ticket ... NOT bellyaching and finger-pointing and claiming he's always first with ideas and last to be heard, pointing accusatory fingers so as to collect the sympathy vote ...then (this is precious) knowing he's not going to get an outright victory, dropping subtle hints that he'd consider a coalition with the party that's got us all into this f**king mess in the first place !!! Priceless !!

The LibDems claim to be fresh with ideas ... I certainly have not yet seen anything that isn't otherwise a cobbled mishmash of the other two parties ideas and policies ... plus, the worrying factor is their absolute committment to a Federal Europe.

Or maybe we'd all like to end up like the Greeks right now - in deep financial sh*t and with Germany (a fellow EU member) saying "You're on your own mate - leave the EU" !!! Wink

by Merlin Tue 27 Apr 2010, 07:15

Amusing tale from yesterday's Telegraph ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/7632470/Andy-Burnham-is-on-a-sticky-wicket-with-David-Gower.html

Astute sixth sense from the great man ... all these years later, Burnham is an even bigger sh*t!

by Allan D Tue 27 Apr 2010, 08:48

I assume "another great victory" is a piece of Telegraaf irony for the benefit of the cognoscenti. 1984 was the year of the famous, or infamous, Windies' 'blackwash'. Old Trafford was the fourrth in the series and the second innings defeat.

West Indies batted first making 500 (Greenidge 223, Dujon 101, Davis 77) and made England follow-on after they had scored 280 (Lamb 100*) but had been reduced to 10 men after Paul Terry had his arm broken by a rising ball from Winston Davis. In their second outing England declined to 156 in 67 overs with the most damage done by the demon off-spinner, Roger Harper, who claimed a Test best performance of 6-57 (Malcolm Marshall, who had destroyed England in the previous Test at Headingley, was absent from the match due to incurring a similar injury to Terry). It was also Gower's best performance in the series (in which he averaged 19 as immortalised by Rory Bremner's hit record) as he top scored and remained undefeated on 57 (an unusual case of England's top scorers in both innings both remaining not out).

I should imagine, however, that walking off the field in those circumstances and being approached by a Liverpudlian squirt asking for an item of his gear might have ruffled even the famous Gower insouciance (did Gower bat in a hat in that match though? I would have thought helmets were de rigeur in that series even against the likes of Roger Harper).

by JKLever Tue 27 Apr 2010, 13:04

Good piece on the politics show by Andrew Neill just now. None of the parties are explaining the cuts that will be needed and where it'll come from aside from these 'efficiency savings' bollocks.

£37bn per year will need to be cut from the budget up to 2014, and judging from the things that have been ringfenced that means it would have to be found from 40% of remaining departments.

Which is bollocks of course.

Tax rises here we come, they'll never get it under control with spending cuts alone.

by Eric Air Emu Tue 27 Apr 2010, 18:36

As a hard working poorly paid Johny public sector worker I'm ready for the fight ahead. I'll kick all your smug worthless private sector backsides. Oh yes.

by JKLever Tue 27 Apr 2010, 18:40

Today probably sealed it as the most cringeworthy Labour general election campaign ever. Following the Elvis impersonator today we had Peppa Pig FFS

by Guest Tue 27 Apr 2010, 18:57

JKLever wrote:Today probably sealed it as the most cringeworthy Labour general election campaign ever. Following the Elvis impersonator today we had Peppa Pig FFS

They've totally lost their minds. It's embarassing.

by Allan D Tue 27 Apr 2010, 20:37

Interesting summary of the constitutional position from UK Polling Report in the event of a hung Parliament:

1) The prime minister remains the Prime Minister until he resigns. Even if he has lost his majority or is no longer the largest party, the PM remains PM until he resigns. It is his right, if he wishes, to wait until Parliament reassembles and to try and get approval for a Queen’s speech, even if he does not lead the largest party.

2) The Queen’s government must continue. When the Prime Minister resigns the Queen immediately invites someone else to replace him, in the knowledge that they will accept. The Palace will not allow there to be a period without government.

3) The Queen will not involve itself in anything that could be construed as being partisan, and does not personally involve herself in negotiations – though the Palace will closely follow the progress of negotiations.

4) Should the Prime Minister resign, the Queen will invite the person most capable of commanding a majority in the Commons (or at least, getting a Queen’s Speech and budget past the House). That will normally be the leader of the largest party, but it doesn’t have to be.

5) Should a Prime Minister lose a vote of confidence, or something regarded as a vote of confidence like the vote on the Queens Speech, they must resign or request a dissolution. A dissolution remains the personal power of the monarch, and she may refuse if the Parliament has only just been elected and there is a chance of an alternative government.

Just a couple of caveats, as far as (2) is concerned there are two options open to any individual when asked to form a government. He can either accept and 'kiss hands' immediately or, as in the Douglas-Home case in 1963, ask for the Queen's Commission to form a government i.e. go away and ask others if they would be willing to support him in office if he were to become PM and then come back to the Queen and tell her whether he had been successful or unsuccessful. In that case the previous PM would remain in office as a caretaker. The Queen might advise a potential candidate, if there were any uncertainty, that that might be the best course to take.

As far as (3) goes George V did take an active part in the political crises caused by the resignation of Lloyd George from the Cabinet in December 1916 over Asquith's rejection of his plan to set up a separate Executive Council of non-departmental ministers to run the war effort which led to Lloyd George replacing Asquith as PM (after the post had been offered to the Conservative leader, Bonar Law, and his predecessor, Balfour, who both declined it in favour of LG) as well as the crisis in August 1931 caused by the collapse of the minority Labour Government and its replacement by a 'National' Government (effectively a Conservative-Liberal coalition with a few renegade Labour add-ons) with Ramsay Macdonald remaining in post as PM despite the fact that Macdonald had been willing to go into opposition with the Labour Party and Baldwin, the Conservative leader, was willing to form a minority government.

The Queen, by all accounts, is more politically fastidious than her grandfather was and is likely to take a backseat unless there is complete deadlock. She found her involvement by Macmillan in the succession crisis in 1963 rather distasteful since it appeared that the Crown was, in effect, choosing the leader of the Conservative Party and admitted her relief, in a private conversation much later, that the Conservative Party had changed its rules, in 1965, to allow for leadership elections by secret ballot (nevertheless both she and Home acted completely properly in 1963 which is more than can be said of Macmillan).

There is nothing to stop Brown staying on as PM until Parliament meets and presenting a Queen's Speech and having the usual 6-day debate with a vote at the end of it, as Baldwin did after the 1923 election (although he also led the largest party) but I think it is more likely he will follow the precedent of Heath in 1974 and hold talks with Clegg in the immediate aftermath of the election and ask Clegg whether he will support him or not. If the answer is in the negative (as Thorpe's was in 1974) he will go to the Palace and advise the Queen to send for Cameron (assuming the Conservatives are the next largest party).

I do not think Clegg will succeed in doing what Clement Attlee did to Neville Chamberlain in May 1940 and say I am willing to support your government but not you as PM, thus effectively forcing Chamberlain to resign, with the choice left between Halifax and Churchill. Having already been denied one leadership contest when Brown became PM three years ago I do not think that the Labour Party will take kindly to its leader being effectively chosen by Nick Clegg. In order to preserve party unity Brown would reject Clegg's ultimatum, go into opposition, probably resign as Leader, allowing a new leader to be chosen who would be in a better position to fight another election in 18 months or 2 years' time.

by JKLever Tue 27 Apr 2010, 20:54

Clegg also wouldn't look good basically hoisting another PM on the UK 'unelected'

Despite all the rhetoric I think Clegg will join a lib/lab coalition with Brown continuing as PM as he knows if he refuses the Tories are likely to go for a minority government and no electoral change for his party. It's perfectly legitimate for Brown to stay on despite the unpopularity in the country.

Still wouldn't rule out a last day surge for the Tories once that proposition dawns on them, and a decent majority for Cameron. The Tories need to keep Osborne out of the limelight.

by Merlin Wed 28 Apr 2010, 08:45

Eric Air Emu wrote:As a hard working poorly paid Johny public sector worker I'm ready for the fight ahead. I'll kick all your smug worthless private sector backsides. Oh yes.

Speaking about kicking and smugness ... you weren't the angry "public sector" geezer who got paid to champion the recent anti-Papal propoganda crap, were you Emu?

by Basil Wed 28 Apr 2010, 08:59

I can't help thinking that Clegg has shot himself (and, therefore, the Lib Dems) in the foot with all this talk of who he and will not work with after 6 May in the event of a hung Parliament.

Part of his appeal was that he wasn't "the other two" - he purported to represent something new in our politics. He diminishes that message by openly discussing terms for a coalition/pact. His original message that the voters were the king-makers was far more effective.

I can see the Lib Dem share of the vote sliding gently between now and polling day.

by Merlin Wed 28 Apr 2010, 09:34

I can see the Lib Dem share of the vote sliding gently between now and polling day.

I've never doubted it.
The pantomime-affect is nearly over (the TV debates) and the "substance" of the LibDems policies (other than to train-wreck the other parties) has yet to expose itself beyond the acting capabilities of Clegg.

I was amused at this observation from a pal of mine last night - he claimed that he'd always voted LibDem in order to stay impartial in the past elections and in the full nowledge that they'd come third - as they always have. However, now, with the possiblity of the LibDems getting a sniff of winning in this constiuency - he's decided to vote Independent as he fears for the outcome if the yellow perils creep in.
One LibDem vote gawn!!

Overall, the LibDems will probably finish second with Nu Labour a poor third ... but I reckon the boy David will have the smallest of majorities .... and the sight of Cameroon v Clegg across the boxes at PMQT every Wednesday will be one to enjoy ... especially with the NuLabour socialists pushed into the far corner of the chamber!!!

PS Bercow (NuLabour Speaker) looking perilously close to losing his "uncontested" seat in Buckingham. aces

by Basil Wed 28 Apr 2010, 09:38

Merlin wrote:

I can see the Lib Dem share of the vote sliding gently between now and polling day.

I've never doubted it.
The pantomime-affect is nearly over (the TV debates) and the "substance" of the LibDems policies (other than to train-wreck the other parties) has yet to expose itself beyond the acting capabilities of Clegg.

I was amused at this observation from a pal of mine last night - he claimed that he'd always voted LibDem in order to stay impartial in the past elections. Now, with the possiblity of the LibDems getting a sniff of winning in this constiuency - he's decided to vote Independent as he fears for the outcome if the yellow perils creep in.
One LibDem vote gawn!!

Overall, the LibDems will probably finish second with Nu Labour a poor third ... but I reckon the boy David will have the smallest of majorities .... and the sight of Cameroon v Clegg across the boxes at PMQT every Wednesday will be one to enjoy ... especially with the NuLabour socialists pushed into the far corner of the chamber!!!

PS Bercow (NuLabour Speaker) looking perilously close to losing his "uncontested" seat in Buckingham.

Nigel Farage for John Bercow: one prat for another then!

by Merlin Wed 28 Apr 2010, 09:43

No.
Word is that the previous local Conservative party chairman for Bucks is also standing - but as an "Independent".
He's local, much respected, born/lived in and knows the area and, most important of all, rightly claims that he will at least have a voice for Buckingham in the Chamber - unlike Bercow, who will saunter off to the Speaker's Chair for the next 5 years ...and who has, anyway done SFA for the area.

According to the local rags, both Bercow and Fabrege Farage are openly concerned, with the hustings turning nasty now in leafy Buckingham!

by JKLever Wed 28 Apr 2010, 11:14

Still think we'll see a Lib/Lab pact with Broon continuing as PM. I'd like that if only to imagine Merlins face when he wakes up the next morning. (not something i'd normally think about no!)

by Allan D Wed 28 Apr 2010, 11:16

Merlin wrote:No.
Word is that the previous local Conservative party chairman for Bucks is also standing - but as an "Independent".
He's local, much respected, born/lived in and knows the area and, most important of all, rightly claims that he will at least have a voice for Buckingham in the Chamber - unlike Bercow, who will saunter off to the Speaker's Chair for the next 5 years ...and who has, anyway done SFA for the area.

His name is John Stevens, who is a former Tory MEP and is being supported by the Blessed Martin Bell, peace be upon him. At this stage Bercow seems likeliest to provide the 'Portillo Moment' on Election Night as he seems to be universally loathed in his constituency and his wife standing as a Labour candidate in the borough elections in Pimlico has not helped his cause.

There are in fact 11 candidates standing in Buckingham (even though no Lib Dem or Labour candidate is in line with the convention not to oppose the Speaker). Apart from Bercow and Farage there are 5 Independents (including Stevens), a Christian candidate, one from the BNP and one from the evergreen Monster Raving Loony Party who all add to the gaiety of nations in Buckingham and make it far and away the most interesting contest even if the outcome will have no effect on determining who will be in No.10.

If Bercow loses he will become the first Speaker to be booted out by his own electors since Sir Richard Onslow lost his Surrey seat in 1710. We may be faced with the possibility therefore of both a new Prime Minister and a new Speaker having to be chosen simultaneously - a changeover that last occurred in 1951. If there were to be a majority Conservative government (depending on the size of the majority) I would expect Sir George Young, currently Shadow Leader of the House, who was runner-up to both Speaker Martin in 2000 and Bercow last year, to be the favourite for the Chair. However if a compromise choice is called for, Menzies Campbell may become the first Liberal to be dragged to the Chair since J.H.Whitley in 1921 although Roderic Bowen, then Liberal MP for Cardigan, was persuaded by Harold Wilson to accept nomination as a Deputy Speaker following the death of the then Speaker, Sir Harry Hylton-Foster in 1965.

by Merlin Wed 28 Apr 2010, 11:18

JKLever wrote:Still think we'll see a Lib/Lab pact with Broon continuing as PM. I'd like that if only to imagine Merlins face when he wakes up the next morning. (not something i'd normally think about no!)

Bloody hell, I'm glad to hear that Lever-san!
Anyway, no worries on that account - you'll be shot of me as I'll be packing for the long trip down to NZ.

by Guest Wed 28 Apr 2010, 11:40

Merlin wrote:
JKLever wrote:Still think we'll see a Lib/Lab pact with Broon continuing as PM. I'd like that if only to imagine Merlins face when he wakes up the next morning. (not something i'd normally think about no!)

Bloody hell, I'm glad to hear that Lever-san!
Anyway, no worries on that account - you'll be shot of me as I'll be packing for the long trip down to NZ.

Bollocks. Utter bollocks.

by JKLever Wed 28 Apr 2010, 11:52

Which bit is the bollocks Vilks?

by Merlin Wed 28 Apr 2010, 11:56

Yeah - do explain the outburst Vilks?

Are you expressing your concern at my possible departure from this board or else ....your dislike of all things NZ or else Lever's wierd fantasy of picturing my face when Bwown and Cleggie take over ??!

Or are you pissed at 11 am in the morning? Wink

by Guest Wed 28 Apr 2010, 12:01

You won't be going to New Zealand just because of the result of an election. If you do then you are a massive lamer.

And even if you did, I believe they have the internet in NZ.

by JKLever Wed 28 Apr 2010, 12:05

He's already a massive lamer. I think he means he's on his way to NZ regardless of the result Wink

by Sponsored content