The Politics Thread

[ratbert]

Ok, lets change tack a little. So we get a Lib/Lab government, who becomes PM? Brown has stood down, and there won;t be a new Labour leader for weeks if not months.

Brown is PM until Labour elects new leader. Gordo wants this to be by the time the Lab conference takes place - so by late September, though it could be sooner than that.

New Labour leader becomes PM... but has to be asked by Queenie to form a government first, and presumably needs to be backed by or have the confidence of the coalition partners.The coalition could be tested at this point depending on what the putative Labour PM offers.

Presumably a general election could follow, under AV/other, to legitmise the new PM, as a second unelected PM in a row carrying on regardless wouldn't do Labour or the Lib Dems much good in the eyes of the voters.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

OK - but you still haven't said why it is we could not go back to FPTP - or having a Lord Chancellor if a future generation chose to do so.

Right, well obviously it is technically possible, just as constitutional lawyers like to argue that Parliament is still sovereign because technically we could leave the EU at any time...

It's just that once these things happen the new situation seems to crystallize and going back is very difficult.

[thebish]

OK - but you still haven't said why it is we could not go back to FPTP - or having a Lord Chancellor if a future generation chose to do so.

Right, well obviously it is technically possible, just as constitutional lawyers like to argue that Parliament is still sovereign because technically we could leave the EU at any time...

It's just that once these things happen the new situation seems to crystallize and going back is very difficult.

I don't see why going back is any more difficult than making the change in the first place - really I don't.

It is only more difficult if people realise that once the change is made the old way of doing it was utterly crap....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

anyway, just wanted to know, If Brown had resigned before the election, would Labour have been clear outright winners?

Although nobody thought of Brown as being much of an electoral asset in the end, I can't see that the result would have been much different for anyone else.

It's even arguable that he fought a pretty good campaign that narrowed the Conservative lead in the polls, which, at one point, had them in clear majority territory. Even though he 'came third' in all the debates, his actually held his own quite well, which is much better than some predicted for him.

The other question is - if not Brown, then who? Who of those near the top of the New Labour apparatus could have done a better job?

[thebish]

anyway, just wanted to know, If Brown had resigned before the election, would Labour have been clear outright winners?

Although nobody thought of Brown as being much of an electoral asset in the end, I can't see that the result would have been much different for anyone else.

It's even arguable that he fought a pretty good campaign that narrowed the Conservative lead in the polls, which, at one point, had them in clear majority territory. Even though he 'came third' in all the debates, his actually held his own quite well, which is much better than some predicted for him.

The other question is - if not Brown, then who? Who of those near the top of the New Labour apparatus could have done a better job?

I suspect that a different labour leader would have made a difference - but not a labour majority...

if it had been Miliband..

1. The shackles of the argument that Brown had been chancellor and PM for over a decade and thus was personally implicated in anything anyone cares to mention that is alleged to have gone wrong
2. Unfortunately I think this is now the norm - Miliband is way more media-savvy and personally engaging and would have come across way better on the telly for those (it seems an awful lot) who can't be arsed with the detail or the policies - but like the cut of a man's jib...
3. Miliband would have appeared new and shiny and relatively untainted by the past as opposed to Brown's tired and washed-up "had your chance" image.

[Worthy4England]

anyway, just wanted to know, If Brown had resigned before the election, would Labour have been clear outright winners?

Although nobody thought of Brown as being much of an electoral asset in the end, I can't see that the result would have been much different for anyone else.

It's even arguable that he fought a pretty good campaign that narrowed the Conservative lead in the polls, which, at one point, had them in clear majority territory. Even though he 'came third' in all the debates, his actually held his own quite well, which is much better than some predicted for him.

The other question is - if not Brown, then who? Who of those near the top of the New Labour apparatus could have done a better job?

I agree generally mummy. Don't think someone other than Brown would have changed the overall landscape - might have not been quite as big a swing but still enough to give the Cons the largest share of the vote.

It's not untypical mid-term, for the party in second to open up a significant gap in the polls, before they narrow as you head in to election day. I think Brown is generally a solid parliamentary debater (regardless of whether you think he's right or wrong), but I think with leadership debates and "stuff" that are in the public eye, they're a dying breed in terms of being leadership material. Too many people don't want "substance". Which I think is somewhat of a pity, as you effectively dumb down the debate in favour of soundbite politics a la USA.

For the minute, for Labour, I think they'd do well to go with Alan Johnson.

[a1]

yeah , yeah. all i know is folk voted for a local mp , a load of them make a government. gordon brown or david cameron werent on the ballot, nor did it say if you vote for someone who loses then the statistics can be skewered towards proving changing how you vote.

i did know that the non-tories in parliment could team up and vote against them on laws and that.

certain folk keep using national statisics and overall votes to prove no one (on here?) wants the tories.

if either the av+ or the PR bollox i dont get becomes law. how do you vote tactically ?

No - still not having it.

No one is using statistics (as far as I've seen) to prove no one want the Tories. 10m people voted for them, which is more than voted for either Labour or Lib Dem.

Unfortunately, that didn't get them enough seats to form an outright Government (one that's guaranteed to win a vote assuming all its MP's vote for it), but they can request of the outgoing Prime Minister that they form a minority Government, in the event that they can't find a coalition partner that gets them over the win-line.

Your bit about non-tories teaming up to vote against the tories is a bit unfortunate, as that's equally what the tories are trying to do with with the lib dems. As a party that didn't win big enough to form a Government on its own, they're having to team-up with another party, who normally they wouldn't give the steam off their pi$$ to - to enable them to vote against Labour and the other parties and be sure of carrying legislation through the house.

The last point about how do you vote tactically under AV and PR - is one of the fundamental points. Under pure PR you wouldn't have to vote tactically. My one vote for Screaming Lord Such would count as one vote and if he got enough of them up and down the country, he'd get a seat. Bit different under AV and AV+ as there's progressively more tactical bits and less proportional bits.

Final point. The country has never voted for a Government on a greater than 50% share since 1931. The party in power never represents the will of most of the electorate, the voting system is just rigged to make it look that way. 6 out of 10 cats said they didn't want the glorious Thatcher years - 6 out of 10 cats said they didn't want the glorious Blair years - the last two elections this has been nearer 6.5/10 who didn't want Labour last time and don't want the Tories this time. Hardly what you'd call a "resounding mandate".[/quote]

all thats well and good i kind of understand , i kinda dont. i know why people like it, i just think its wrong.

my point is that the margin of defeat or whatever should not be a factor in who wins. if the libs lose 49-51 49-51 and win 80-20 theyve got more votes overall but its done by town.
Town number 2 might not give a shit that town number 3's bins havent been emptied.
You just end up with a government folk didnt like enough to vote proper for. bizarrely thats what we have now , so i cant even see the point of changing it. it kinda works like what the pr campaigners want now. its doing what they want.

and my "fears" over it being proper [after some finding out] apparantly its called "monotonicity criterion" and some voting systems fail it. certain types of PR might not fail it some might do. whatever. theres probably other methods of 'authenticity' too.

when i vote , i vote to win , i dont piss about with tactical voting . if i lose - fair enough. i dont want losers in. at least the other side won. i can live with my losing vote being 'ignored' in some winner takes all situation. i can see people going "why? i couldnt" but i just can.

cant see going "this thick bastard doesnt get it" will help them change it though. they'll come off as condesending.

but whatever.

thanks.

[Puskas]

Back to leader for the Labour Party - It'll probably be David Milliband or some Balls or other. Which is probably a better long term bet than Alan Johnson (who'd probably get my vote)

Surely Balls couldn't get it - he makes even George Osborne look like a bloke you wouldn't mind having a pint with.

I have a lot of respect for David Miliband and think he would be a formidable opponent.

It won't be Balls - no party will elect a leader with a stupid name - it's about image nowadays...

I suspect Johnson or Milliband (David, not Ed - though there are rumours he might stand too....)

also...

At a Labour conference a few years ago, delegates appeared sporting “my favourite Miliband” badges. Some stated that their preferred Miliband was David. Others said Ed. Almost as popular were badges saying “My favourite Miliband is Ralph”, a reference to the brothers’ late father, a towering intellectual figure on the Left. The whole business started getting silly when delegates wore badges proclaiming: “My favourite Miliband is the Steve Miller band”.

I've always thought the rise of the Millibands is part of the modern campaign for the metric system.

Replacing your old, imperial politicians - your Foot, for instance - with a Milliband.

[thebish]

Back to leader for the Labour Party - It'll probably be David Milliband or some Balls or other. Which is probably a better long term bet than Alan Johnson (who'd probably get my vote)

Surely Balls couldn't get it - he makes even George Osborne look like a bloke you wouldn't mind having a pint with.

I have a lot of respect for David Miliband and think he would be a formidable opponent.

It won't be Balls - no party will elect a leader with a stupid name - it's about image nowadays...

I suspect Johnson or Milliband (David, not Ed - though there are rumours he might stand too....)

also...

At a Labour conference a few years ago, delegates appeared sporting “my favourite Miliband” badges. Some stated that their preferred Miliband was David. Others said Ed. Almost as popular were badges saying “My favourite Miliband is Ralph”, a reference to the brothers’ late father, a towering intellectual figure on the Left. The whole business started getting silly when delegates wore badges proclaiming: “My favourite Miliband is the Steve Miller band”.

I've always thought the rise of the Millibands is part of the modern campaign for the metric system.

Replacing your old, imperial politicians - your Foot, for instance - with a Milliband.

[Hoboh]

anyway, just wanted to know, If Brown had resigned before the election, would Labour have been clear outright winners?

Although nobody thought of Brown as being much of an electoral asset in the end, I can't see that the result would have been much different for anyone else.

It's even arguable that he fought a pretty good campaign that narrowed the Conservative lead in the polls, which, at one point, had them in clear majority territory. Even though he 'came third' in all the debates, his actually held his own quite well, which is much better than some predicted for him.

The other question is - if not Brown, then who? Who of those near the top of the New Labour apparatus could have done a better job?

Sorry Mummy, I'd argue the Tory's lost it rather than labour and Brown narrowed it. There was a lack of a couple of "defining policies" missing, the "clear Blue water" syndrome.

Being honest the obsession we have with all these "young wet between the ears career politicians" is rather alarming, it smacks of all party's trying the Blair route, me I'd love the Ken Clarke brigade from all party's to figure more prominently, people you just know have the hands on experience.

[thebish]

I reckon we also need to take into account the political hierarchy...

Mandelson, Balls, Miliband et al. - negotiating on behalf of the labour party have agendas of their own - namely the maintainance of Minister Status (and salary)

for your average labour backbencher - they still have a job - the same job - and a salary - the same salary - whether they are in opposition or not - and it's going to be a WHOLE lot more fun being in opposition for the next couple of years than being in power.

I suspect what will happen is that labour backbenchers will quietly torpedo the possibility of a lib-lab pact and that by the end of the day - or possibly tomorrow we will have some kind of a deal between libs and cons

[Puskas]

Sorry Mummy, I'd argue the Tory's lost it rather than labour and Brown narrowed it. There was a lack of a couple of "defining policies" missing, the "clear Blue water" syndrome.

Being honest the obsession we have with all these "young wet between the ears career politicians" is rather alarming, it smacks of all party's trying the Blair route, me I'd love the Ken Clarke brigade from all party's to figure more prominently, people you just know have the hands on experience.

So who are they?

Ken Clarke? Charles Clarke? And Stephen Clark[e]? (http://stephenclark.mycouncillor.org.uk/ - yes, I had to resort to google for that one...)

[Lord Kangana]

anyway, just wanted to know, If Brown had resigned before the election, would Labour have been clear outright winners?

Although nobody thought of Brown as being much of an electoral asset in the end, I can't see that the result would have been much different for anyone else.

It's even arguable that he fought a pretty good campaign that narrowed the Conservative lead in the polls, which, at one point, had them in clear majority territory. Even though he 'came third' in all the debates, his actually held his own quite well, which is much better than some predicted for him.

The other question is - if not Brown, then who? Who of those near the top of the New Labour apparatus could have done a better job?

Sorry Mummy, I'd argue the Tory's lost it rather than labour and Brown narrowed it. There was a lack of a couple of "defining policies" missing, the "clear Blue water" syndrome.

Being honest the obsession we have with all these "young wet between the ears career politicians" is rather alarming, it smacks of all party's trying the Blair route, me I'd love the Ken Clarke brigade from all party's to figure more prominently, people you just know have the hands on experience.

I hope they have a second election, I'm voting hobo.

[thebish]

Sorry Mummy, I'd argue the Tory's lost it rather than labour and Brown narrowed it. There was a lack of a couple of "defining policies" missing, the "clear Blue water" syndrome.

Being honest the obsession we have with all these "young wet between the ears career politicians" is rather alarming, it smacks of all party's trying the Blair route, me I'd love the Ken Clarke brigade from all party's to figure more prominently, people you just know have the hands on experience.

So who are they?

Ken Clarke? Charles Clarke? And Stephen Clark[e]? (http://stephenclark.mycouncillor.org.uk/ - yes, I had to resort to google for that one...)

widespread reports today suggest that Cameron will ship the following old-stagers back in to help relations with his new chums the Lib Dems!

Michael "14 attempts not to answer paxman's question" Howard, Iain "quiet man turning up the volume" Duncan Doughnut and David Davidson "supakev" Davis

[Prufrock]

I reckon we also need to take into account the political hierarchy...

Mandelson, Balls, Miliband et al. - negotiating on behalf of the labour party have agendas of their own - namely the maintainance of Minister Status (and salary)

for your average labour backbencher - they still have a job - the same job - and a salary - the same salary - whether they are in opposition or not - and it's going to be a WHOLE lot more fun being in opposition for the next couple of years than being in power.

I suspect what will happen is that labour backbenchers will quietly torpedo the possibility of a lib-lab pact and that by the end of the day - or possibly tomorrow we will have some kind of a deal between libs and cons

Just can't see Lib-Tory coalition, they differ far too much on far too much. Trident/ Tax breaks for the rich/ Ringfencing education/ immigration quotas. Tory minority and another go soon I reckons.

[thebish]

I reckon we also need to take into account the political hierarchy...

Mandelson, Balls, Miliband et al. - negotiating on behalf of the labour party have agendas of their own - namely the maintainance of Minister Status (and salary)

for your average labour backbencher - they still have a job - the same job - and a salary - the same salary - whether they are in opposition or not - and it's going to be a WHOLE lot more fun being in opposition for the next couple of years than being in power.

I suspect what will happen is that labour backbenchers will quietly torpedo the possibility of a lib-lab pact and that by the end of the day - or possibly tomorrow we will have some kind of a deal between libs and cons

Just can't see Lib-Tory coalition, they differ far too much on far too much. Trident/ Tax breaks for the rich/ Ringfencing education/ immigration quotas. Tory minority and another go soon I reckons.

that's possible too - but the labour backbenchers WILL strangle a lib-lab pact at birth (or rather - before birth)

the Lib-dems are plenty capable of a pact with the tories.... it won't please all their voters or even MPs - but....

[Prufrock]

I reckon we also need to take into account the political hierarchy...

Mandelson, Balls, Miliband et al. - negotiating on behalf of the labour party have agendas of their own - namely the maintainance of Minister Status (and salary)

for your average labour backbencher - they still have a job - the same job - and a salary - the same salary - whether they are in opposition or not - and it's going to be a WHOLE lot more fun being in opposition for the next couple of years than being in power.

I suspect what will happen is that labour backbenchers will quietly torpedo the possibility of a lib-lab pact and that by the end of the day - or possibly tomorrow we will have some kind of a deal between libs and cons

Just can't see Lib-Tory coalition, they differ far too much on far too much. Trident/ Tax breaks for the rich/ Ringfencing education/ immigration quotas. Tory minority and another go soon I reckons.

that's possible too - but the labour backbenchers WILL strangle a lib-lab pact at birth (or rather - before birth)

the Lib-dems are plenty capable of a pact with the tories.... it won't please all their voters or even MPs - but....

Surely only if they are promised a referendum on electoral reform, and after that what is to stop then deciding not to bother voting with the Tories anymore?

[thebish]

I reckon we also need to take into account the political hierarchy...

Mandelson, Balls, Miliband et al. - negotiating on behalf of the labour party have agendas of their own - namely the maintainance of Minister Status (and salary)

for your average labour backbencher - they still have a job - the same job - and a salary - the same salary - whether they are in opposition or not - and it's going to be a WHOLE lot more fun being in opposition for the next couple of years than being in power.

I suspect what will happen is that labour backbenchers will quietly torpedo the possibility of a lib-lab pact and that by the end of the day - or possibly tomorrow we will have some kind of a deal between libs and cons

Just can't see Lib-Tory coalition, they differ far too much on far too much. Trident/ Tax breaks for the rich/ Ringfencing education/ immigration quotas. Tory minority and another go soon I reckons.

that's possible too - but the labour backbenchers WILL strangle a lib-lab pact at birth (or rather - before birth)

the Lib-dems are plenty capable of a pact with the tories.... it won't please all their voters or even MPs - but....

Surely only if they are promised a referendum on electoral reform, and after that what is to stop then deciding not to bother voting with the Tories anymore?

the tories have now offered a referendum on AV - haven't they? and - yes - it will be an almighty clunking mess.

I suspect what grieves cameron most is that he would be denied his thatcher-blair moment outside No10 declaring victory whilst at the same time being humbled by the honour the British Electorate have given him - pregnant wife by his side..

now he'll have to announce summat mealy-mouthed with a gurning Clegg alongside him - and share the mic too...

boy will he hate that....

[thebish]

and what kind of questions would Clegg ask at PMQs? would Dave's team write them for him?

[Hoboh]

and what kind of questions would Clegg ask at PMQs? would Dave's team write them for him?

"Will the Prime minister support me when I welcome the visit of the President of Botswana on his visit to this country"?