Brown resigns

[SaveTheUK]

Don't have linkage but the news channels are reporting that Gordon Brown has resigned his post as Labour leader.

Brown is said to want a new leader in place for the party's Autumn conference.

[uncon]

Brown has said he is going to resign.

I wait to see it...his own party and an entire country can't get him out!

[Barry]

That is the most mealy mouthed "resignation" that I have ever heard.
It was full of ifs, buts and maybes.

[DTE]

I'm torn on this. i think he was good on the whole, better than the thatcher cow asnywya and better thn blair but who knows

[uncon]

People keep telling us that the 'electorate have given us a message' - I'm pretty bloody sure that the message wasn't let Nick decide the policies and leaders

[Tete123]

I'm sick of hearing Lab MPs explain how a Lib - Lab pact would represent 52pc of the electorates views ... forgetting the fact that a Lib - Con pact would actually represent 59pc.

[uncon]

I'm sick of hearing Lab MPs explain how a Lib - Lab pact would represent 52pc of the electorates views ... forgetting the fact that a Lib - Con pact would actually represent 59pc.

In fairness none of them represent any vote.

Nobody voted for a coalition. The politicians and the Media keep telling us we did, but I didn't see that option on my ballot.

[Tete123]

In fairness none of them represent any vote.

Nobody voted for a coalition. The politicians and the Media keep telling us we did, but I didn't see that option on my ballot.

That's of course true. In fact I distinctly remember the politicos mentioning that they were campaigning for a .... (insert party name here) victory and not a hung parliament; but, then I remember Nick Clegg stating he wouldn't be king-maker.

Harry Mount writes:

He’s just been on the BBC News claiming that the electorate didn’t want a particular party to win. Erm, no, you’re wrong, Peter.
Yes, perhaps a certain proportion of voters wanted the result we ended up with. But, in any election, there are always a hard line group of around 20 per cent of voters who are die-hard Tories and another 20 per cent who are die-hard Labour. Ditto, in smaller numbers, for the Lib Dems, the Scottish Nationalists, UKIP etc etc.
To say, as Hain was saying, that no one wanted a particular party in power is to imply that any one party has as much right as another to form a coalition with the Lib Dems. And that was the see-through little game that Hain was playing this evening.

[Streetwalker]

Don't have linkage but the news channels are reporting that Gordon Brown has resigned his post as Labour leader.

Brown is said to want a new leader in place for the party's Autumn conference.

Well its a start .....whos next ?......form an orderly que now

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

Brown did NOT resign - he was resoundingly voted out WITH his Party.

The vote for the creep Clegg was tiny - no one would want him in Governance - no one voted for that.

Cameron will be gone soon but who in his place?

The Marxist Milliepied will get Brown's job but no one voted for him as PM.

Fox is front runner for CommieRon's.

Scarey isn't it!

Next election last Thursday before daylight saving time clocks change!

All minor parties will be squeezed leaving Liebour vs. CONservative and a few Independents but the rest are toast.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Midas]

Well its a start .....whos next ?......form an orderly que now

From what I've read so far, his resignation seems more like a cynical manoeuvre to try to keep Labour in the driving seat as long as possible despite the resounding vote of no confidence given to them by the public in the election.

[Expounder]

Brown has said he is going to resign.

I wait to see it...his own party and an entire country can't get him out!

A silly and immature observation.

[Expounder]

I'm sick of hearing Lab MPs explain how a Lib - Lab pact would represent 52pc of the electorates views ... forgetting the fact that a Lib - Con pact would actually represent 59pc.

The non Tory vote combined constitutes a majority of non Tory votes by the two parties if Labour and the LibDems decide to form a coalition. I don't know how this will end up, but the Tories desperate last gasp attempt to lure the Lib Dems with a referendum on AV is a gamble which they think they will be able to strangle with the overwhelming power of the rabid right wing press convincing the public to vote against.

Clegg may be vain but he's not stupid, he has his own Lib Dem constituency to carry with him. The main Labour and Lib Dem policies are closer, particularly on how soon serious cuts are to be made in order to ensure progress towards economic recovery. As Vince Cable has indicated, this is a deep rift between the Cons and the Lib Dems. AV can be passed by a commons majority with a referendum on the Lib Dems desired form of P.R. during the life of the coalition.

This is all conjecture I know, but it is one of the possible outcomes.

[Tete123]

The non Tory vote combined constitutes a majority of non Tory votes by the two parties if Labour and the LibDems decide to form a coalition. I don't know how this will end up, but the Tories desperate last gasp attempt to lure the Lib Dems with a referendum on AV is a gamble which they think they will be able to strangle with the overwhelming power of the rabid right wing press convincing the public to vote against.

Clegg may be vain but he's not stupid, he has his own Lib Dem constituency to carry with him. The main Labour and Lib Dem policies are closer, particularly on how soon serious cuts are to be made in order to ensure progress towards economic recovery. As Vince Cable has indicated, this is a deep rift between the Cons and the Lib Dems. AV can be passed by a commons majority with a referendum on the Lib Dems desired form of P.R. during the life of the coalition.

This is all conjecture I know, but it is one of the possible outcomes.

You can play the progressive centre left coalition line all you like, we both know that there are as many barriers to a Lib - Lab pact as there are a Lib - Con. As politicians of all colours keep mentioning, no one party received a majority and no particular ideology did either - I discount the nationalist and single issue parties in any progressive coalition. Therefore Cameron and the Cons aren't attempting to obtain power by any other mean than they were the party to receive the largest percentage of the popular vote and the largest number of commons seats. It is they who have a legitimate claim to form government not Labour and if the Libs get into bed with Lab the electorate will punish them at the next election.

[DTE]

From what I've read so far, his resignation seems more like a cynical manoeuvre to try to keep Labour in the driving seat as long as possible despite the resounding vote of no confidence given to them by the public in the election.

Yea, still trying to deceive the masses, but what more would you expect from a thieving socialist.

[uncon]

I am slightly annoyed at the assumption that the labour party owns the lib dem vote. They claim their vote share is over 50%, but many lib dem voters would not have voted that way if they had known they would effectively be put down as labourite.

[Expounder]

You can play the progressive centre left coalition line all you like, we both know that there are as many barriers to a Lib - Lab pact as there are a Lib - Con. As politicians of all colours keep mentioning, no one party received a majority and no particular ideology did either - I discount the nationalist and single issue parties in any progressive coalition. Therefore Cameron and the Cons aren't attempting to obtain power by any other mean than they were the party to receive the largest percentage of the popular vote and the largest number of commons seats. It is they who have a legitimate claim to form government not Labour and if the Libs get into bed with Lab the electorate will punish them at the next election.

You are assuming that AV will not be in place by the time of the next election if a Lib/Lab pact is formed. The promise of a referendum on AV by the Tories is a last ditch ploy to suck the Lib Dems in where they will be chewed up and spat out by the Tory dirty tricks machine aided by rabid Tory supporting journalists

The Tories may vote for referendum in the commons but will campaign ferociously against it backed by the mass right wing media and their closet Tory supporting presenters on TV channels with Murdoch's Sky News leading the charge. What price democracy in these circumstances?

This result has wounded the Tory beast, the whole party is in turmoil. Cameron and his tyros are finished whatever happens.

[uncon]

Expounder...don't you think it is healthier for the Labour party to go into opposition and re-emerge with a new dynamic leader for the next election?

Instinctively this refusal to leave just seems a bit dirty and keeps a reminder of the homes flipping because of ministers determination to serve their own interests. Many in the party who seem far more honorable are calling to end this farce.

[Expounder]

Expounder...don't you think it is healthier for the Labour party to go into opposition and re-emerge with a new dynamic leader for the next election?

Instinctively this refusal to leave just seems a bit dirty and keeps a reminder of the homes flipping because of ministers determination to serve their own interests. Many in the party who seem far more honorable are calling to end this farce.

No, I don't, the Tories mean to reduce the number of MPs by10% and gerrymander boundaries to ensure they rule in perpetuity Cameron had already this in hand. They know AV will not allow them to do this and will ensure proper representation for all parties. If they get away with this "reforming" of the commons you'll be stuck with them for the foreseeable future if not for ever.

[uncon]

No, I don't, the Tories mean to reduce the number of MPs by10% and gerrymander boundaries to ensure they rule in perpetuity Cameron had already this in hand. They know AV will not allow them to do this and will ensure proper representation for all parties. If they get away with this "reforming" of the commons you'll be stuck with them for the foreseeable future if not for ever.

You have a lib lab coalition and both parties are dead in the next election.

Many Tories are in favour of that result...those that aren't are those looking at the government of the country rather than the benefit to the conservatives.

Those labours who are against this grubby little alliance are the labour party that I admire. They are looking at the country rather than their personal interest.

I'm equally disgusted by tories who hold out for their future and labour who grab in for their present benefit

[Expounder]

You have a lib lab coalition and both parties are dead in the next election.

Many Tories are in favour of that result...those that aren't are those looking at the government of the country rather than the benefit to the conservatives.

Those labours who are against this grubby little alliance are the labour party that I admire. They are looking at the country rather than their personal interest.

I'm equally disgusted by tories who hold out for their future and labour who grab in for their present benefit

I didn't suppose Lib/Lab was ever on the cards, the voting numbers didn't stack up it wouldn't have lasted two months. As everyone knows Clegg used his talks with Labour to lever a referendum promise from the Tories for P.R. Camerons bottle went and he obliged. He got what he wanted for himself and his close friends, seats in the cabinet with all the trappings including the the ministeral cars and the big egos and high profiles, and what he would consider a place in history, which could be the destruction of the Lib Dems as a viable party.

He has effectively made the next general election a two horse race by signing up with the Tories. The Lib Dem voters certainly didn't vote for a Tory government and must feel betrayed as he has removed the party from the political equation. If the coalition is rubber stamped the Lib Dems won't exist until it's undone.

Mind you, along with Cameron's limp election campaign, he has done the Labour party a favour especially when Lib Dem voters see him standing in for Cameron in the commons defending the slash and burn policies which he and the "principled" Lol, Vince Cable condemned in the tripartite debates. I believe his actions along with Cameron have damaged both parties will have almost have guaranteed a Labour win at the next GE. The longer the the arrangement lasts the more likely this outcome.

[joethfc]

I didn't suppose Lib/Lab was ever on the cards, the voting numbers didn't stack up it wouldn't have lasted two months. As everyone knows Clegg used his talks with Labour to lever a referendum promise from the Tories for P.R. Camerons bottle went and he obliged. He got what he wanted for himself and his close friends, seats in the cabinet with all the trappings including the the ministeral cars and the big egos and high profiles, and what he would consider a place in history, which could be the destruction of the Lib Dems as a viable party.

He has effectively made the next general election a two horse race by signing up with the Tories. The Lib Dem voters certainly didn't vote for a Tory government and must feel betrayed as he has removed the party from the political equation. If the coalition is rubber stamped the Lib Dems won't exist until it's undone.

Mind you, along with Cameron's limp election campaign, he has done the Labour party a favour especially when Lib Dem voters see him standing in for Cameron in the commons defending the slash and burn policies which he and the "principled" Lol, Vince Cable condemned in the tripartite debates. I believe his actions along with Cameron have damaged both parties will have almost have guaranteed a Labour win at the next GE. The longer the the arrangement lasts the more likely this outcome.

It's like listening to Allistair Campbell with all this labour spin and optimistic talk of coalition failure.

Lib Dem voters knew the only way they would get what they were actually voting for (policy-wise) was by forming a coalition government and there was no deception in that, Nick Clegg said he'd be willing to work with whoever was in a position to do so. The reason people become MPs is to change the way the country works, the Lib Dems can only do that from being in government.

I think we all need to grow up a bit and toss aside this tribal mentality which has made politics so unpopular with many people and we need to support a government which represents the political landscape of this country more than a single party government. This is not the first time this has happened and it is not the only government of its kind in the world.

[uncon]

I didn't suppose Lib/Lab was ever on the cards, the voting numbers didn't stack up it wouldn't have lasted two months. As everyone knows Clegg used his talks with Labour to lever a referendum promise from the Tories for P.R. Camerons bottle went and he obliged. He got what he wanted for himself and his close friends, seats in the cabinet with all the trappings including the the ministeral cars and the big egos and high profiles, and what he would consider a place in history, which could be the destruction of the Lib Dems as a viable party.

He has effectively made the next general election a two horse race by signing up with the Tories. The Lib Dem voters certainly didn't vote for a Tory government and must feel betrayed as he has removed the party from the political equation. If the coalition is rubber stamped the Lib Dems won't exist until it's undone.

Mind you, along with Cameron's limp election campaign, he has done the Labour party a favour especially when Lib Dem voters see him standing in for Cameron in the commons defending the slash and burn policies which he and the "principled" Lol, Vince Cable condemned in the tripartite debates. I believe his actions along with Cameron have damaged both parties will have almost have guaranteed a Labour win at the next GE. The longer the the arrangement lasts the more likely this outcome.

one of two things will happen - the nation will embrace coalition and labour is in the cold or labour will storm it next time.

What I can say is labour needs a fresh face at it's helm in order to stand a chance.

You whining is not going to change a thing

[Expounder]

uncon[/LEFT];107333]one of two things will happen - the nation will embrace coalition and labour is in the cold or labour will storm it next time.

What I can say is labour needs a fresh face at it's helm in order to stand a chance.

You whining is not going to change a thing

uncon, I wasn't whining in my post far from it. I would have settled for this result 9 months or a year ago when we might have been wiped out. In fact I feel quite upbeat about it. Our core vote+ held and the Tories didn't get a clear mandate for their their slash and burn policies in spite of the whole of the media including the TV Tory supporting political pundits and rabid Murdoch.

I was heartened by the support we received in spite of all this and the vicious bile aimed at Gordon Brown. I shall now sit back and watch events unfold. The Lib Dems were desperate to get a foot in the door of No.10 had Labour been in the same position as the Tories Clegg would have wanted to join them. The coalition is nothing to do with the National interest, only to do with Cameron and Clegg's interest. It's power dear girl it's power, the personal influence, and perks that goes with it.

As night follows day some where along the line because of the policies being pursued by Cameron, the proverbial sh** will hit the fan and there will be a baying for blood by the electorate, it could be one year two years maybe three years time. My prediction is that there will be a falling out love and a divorce between the Tories andthe LibDems who will bail out of the coalition to save themselves from further damage inflicted on them by Tory right wing policies forced upon Cameron by the granite faced right in the cabinet and the Tory hard nosed grassroots .

So you see uncon I think Labour came out of this dogs dinner of an election result rather better than we expected , unbowed and 255 seats with a new leader in the pipeleine there's no way to go except up. In time, people[with the exception of the Tories] will remember much of the good that was done as well as the mistakes during Labour's term.

Read the link uncon and have a laugh:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columni...5875-22254100/

[joethfc]

A lot of those people who voted for Labour in the north, Scotland and Wales would have done so even if Margaret Thatcher was your leader, a lot of people vote Labour negatively because they are fearful of the tories but they rarely seem to actually vote for any kind of policy. It now seems to be Labour's plan to claw back centrist voters by making a blairite like David Milliband leader of their party, which keeps the Lib Dems as the only real left-sided alternative despite what people say about them being in coalition with a different party with different beliefs.

I concede that floating left centrists will drift to Labour (the government is rarely a popular thing) but how long until they swing back like a boomerang after we see Millibands true colours.

[Expounder]

A lot of those people who voted for Labour in the north, Scotland and Wales would have done so even if Margaret Thatcher was your leader, a lot of people vote Labour negatively because they are fearful of the tories but they rarely seem to actually vote for any kind of policy. It now seems to be Labour's plan to claw back centrist voters by making a blairite like David Milliband leader of their party, which keeps the Lib Dems as the only real left-sided alternative despite what people say about them being in coalition with a different party with different beliefs.

I concede that floating left centrists will drift to Labour (the government is rarely a popular thing) but how long until they swing back like a boomerang after we see Millibands true colours.

The Lib Dems are biting their tongues as are the right wing Tories regarding this unholy link up. In the end I wager it will damage both parties. This is a marriage of convenience, a self serving ambition to gain office, [particularly on Clegg's part] there will be a honeymoon period, and if Clegg and his co-ministers sell out completely to hold on to the trappings of minor office the honeymoon with Lib Dem voters will end and the Lib Dems will be split in two. These are heady early days wait for three years down the line or even sooner.

Even, if which will no doubtwould be a highly unpopular coalition goes the full term, who do the Lib Dem voters vote for in the next G.E.?

[joethfc]

The labour party sold out along time ago and apart from a few spin-offs they are still going. Of course this is the honeymoon and things will get ugly but it is getting quite tiresome hearing the likes of you and Campbell bleating on about the Lib Dems selling out despite them being pretty open about making such deals during the whole campaign.

Being in government (especially now) is a damaging thing anyway but I don't see it changing things forever.

Surely Lib Dem voters vote Lib Dem or else they wouldn't be a Lib Dem voter.

[Expounder]

The labour party sold out along time ago and apart from a few spin-offs they are still going. Of course this is the honeymoon and things will get ugly but it is getting quite tiresome hearing the likes of you and Campbell bleating on about the Lib Dems selling out despite them being pretty open about making such deals during the whole campaign.

Being in government (especially now) is a damaging thing anyway but I don't see it changing things forever.

Surely Lib Dem voters vote Lib Dem or else they wouldn't be a Lib Dem voter.

The left of the party will vote Labour............................What happens to the rest who knows?

[joethfc]

Some will go labour, some greens and some wont bother, but its to be expected to lose a few votes from this.

[Barry]

The Lib Dems are biting their tongues as are the right wing Tories regarding this unholy link up. In the end I wager it will damage both parties. This is a marriage of convenience, a self serving ambition to gain office, [particularly on Clegg's part] there will be a honeymoon period, and if Clegg and his co-ministers sell out completely to hold on to the trappings of minor office the honeymoon with Lib Dem voters will end and the Lib Dems will be split in two. These are heady early days wait for three years down the line or even sooner.

Even, if which will no doubtwould be a highly unpopular coalition goes the full term, who do the Lib Dem voters vote for in the next G.E.?

I think that they are attempting to re-invent the wheel, with their "new politics".
However they do appear to have started with a basis of a durable working relationship. Only time will tell if that is really a fact.
In any case, there is not much alternative, is there? Are the politicians to turn round to the electorate and say, "vote again, you never got it right the first time"?
That would be like asking the Irish to vote twice over Lisbon.
NO, the politicians need to learn to work with what they are given. If any form of Google Page Ranking appears in the not too distant future, minority or coalition governments will become the rule, rather than the exception.

I hope that this government remains true to its words, stable and good for the country.
For now, I am just so pleased to be rid of the spend spend spend socialists.

[Graveland]

Why is it so difficult to accept a Conservative / Lib Dem coalition? This is the politics of Google Page Ranking (no overall majority, compromises aplenty) so the Liberals should be bathing in their new found political reality. (Or is the reality not what they envisaged?) The hilarious contradiction of Liberalism is always laid bare in such circumstances. If diversity is such a key ideological principle why do you seek to destroy conservatism? Doesn't it offer exactly what you state to stand for? A different view of reality that makes up the "patchwork of life". Without it wouldn't politics be a barren landscape of totalitarianist leftism?

[Major Sinic]

The labour party sold out along time ago and apart from a few spin-offs they are still going. Of course this is the honeymoon and things will get ugly but it is getting quite tiresome hearing the likes of you and Campbell bleating on about the Lib Dems selling out despite them being pretty open about making such deals during the whole campaign.

Being in government (especially now) is a damaging thing anyway but I don't see it changing things forever.

Surely Lib Dem voters vote Lib Dem or else they wouldn't be a Lib Dem voter.

Well said. Once you have been on this forum for a while, you will come to realise that Expounder is a wonderful old Labour dinosaur who still thinks that Labour is the party of the 'working' classes, and that the Conservatives are the party of the wealthy. He is trapped in a Thatcherite nightmare of his own making which bears precious little reality to either then or now. If he was faced with a choice of David Cameron, and now Nick Clegg, or The Yorkshire Ripper as Prime Minister, he would choose the Yorkshire Ripper as long as he was wearing a 'Vote Labour' rosette. Mind you if Clegg had done a deal with Labour he would now be a selfless, principled representative of the masses.

[joethfc]

Why is it so difficult to accept a Conservative / Lib Dem coalition? This is the politics of Google Page Ranking (no overall majority, compromises aplenty) so the Liberals should be bathing in their new found political reality. (Or is the reality not what they envisaged?) The hilarious contradiction of Liberalism is always laid bare in such circumstances. If diversity is such a key ideological principle why do you seek to destroy conservatism? Doesn't it offer exactly what you state to stand for? A different view of reality that makes up the "patchwork of life". Without it wouldn't politics be a barren landscape of totalitarianist leftism?

Well thats what I've been trying to explain to all those who say Clegg has sold out
I am excited about a coalition government but at the same time I think it's guaranteed a baptism of fire considering that the coalition is between parties with very different values.

[Expounder]

Well thats what I've been trying to explain to all those who say Clegg has sold out
I am excited about a coalition government but at the same time I think it's guaranteed a baptism of fire considering that the coalition is between parties with very different values.

With Cameron's constitutional change for getting rid of an unpopular government from 51% to 55% majority he doesn't need the Lib Dems any more they were just window dressing to get him into No10. The total opposition including the Lib Dems can only muster 53%. We have a five year Tory dictatorship to do as they please.

The naive Lib Dems hungry for the trappings of power plus the grace and favour plush flats and ministerial cars can play at being cabinet ministers to satisfy their own personal egos, but truth be known they are no longer needed by Cameron to survive in No10. He played them for suckers and they fell for it.

If Cameron succeeded in his bid for a 55% majority of to oust an unpopular Tory government all of the promises he made can be reneged on and in spite of all protestations can remain in office.

He aims also reduce the number of MPs by 10% and Gerrymander constituency boundaries to ensure a permanent Tory majority in the commons unless the Lib Dems along with the other opposition parties oppose it.

[joethfc]

I don't agree with this %%% idea if I am totally honest I can see why it has come about but I just think that even stability must come behind the importance of democracy.

[Expounder]

I don't agree with this %%% idea if I am totally honest I can see why it has come about but I just think that even stability must come behind the importance of democracy.

So did Adolf Hitler............................................ ....

[UncleVanya]

Gordo Brown had to step down as Party Leader to start with. Even he had realised that he was probably becoming a liability. There were definate 'rumblings' within the Labour Party, even though many Labour supporters would deny this. It's curious just how many folks stepped up to the plate to say that they..."Had all confidence in Brown...!" in the months runing up to the general election. But once he has stepped down as Party Leader and PM, the scrabblings for the leadersip contest has begun.

Not much choice for that.... between the Miliband Bros (Chuckle Bros) and the few others like Ed Balls (Dumber) and Cruddas (Dumbest).

Meanwhile a period of ritual hari-kiri will take place as Labour reconvenes to contemplate their collective political navels down at Muchwailing-on-Sea to wonder how, why, when and where it all went wrong.

[uncon]

With Cameron's constitutional change for getting rid of an unpopular government from 51% to 55% majority he doesn't need the Lib Dems any more they were just window dressing to get him into No10. The total opposition including the Lib Dems can only muster 53%. We have a five year Tory dictatorship to do as they please.

The naive Lib Dems hungry for the trappings of power plus the grace and favour plush flats and ministerial cars can play at being cabinet ministers to satisfy their own personal egos, but truth be known they are no longer needed by Cameron to survive in No10. He played them for suckers and they fell for it.

If Cameron succeeded in his bid for a 55% majority of to oust an unpopular Tory government all of the promises he made can be reneged on and in spite of all protestations can remain in office.

He aims also reduce the number of MPs by 10% and Gerrymander constituency boundaries to ensure a permanent Tory majority in the commons unless the Lib Dems along with the other opposition parties oppose it.

Lot of assumptions there Expounder.

What assumptions do you make about the fact that labour has deliberately tied in a lot of rather strange looking expensive contracts before leaving office? Scorched earth springs to mind...not very inclined towards the future well being of the country. It brings to mind what a few have been saying...labour didn't want a coalition, because they set the mines...politics over people again.

[Graveland]

So did Adolf Hitler............................................ ....

Ok so at the first opportunity you look to bring in old mr Adolf to somehow validate your thinking. You people are pathetic, utilise that rat's maze of yours and ARGUE your point not descend into cheap scaremongering. Isn't Stalin guilty of the same crime, why not use him as an example? Or have you an axe to grind against the right?

[Major Sinic]

Ok so at the first opportunity you look to bring in old mr Adolf to somehow validate your thinking. You people are pathetic, utilise that rat's maze of yours and ARGUE your point not descend into cheap scaremongering. Isn't Stalin guilty of the same crime, why not use him as an example? Or have you an axe to grind against the right?

This is another example of 'Godwins Law' recently cited on this forum on another thread. It suggests that the longer a debate goes on the more likely it is for comparisons with Adolf Hitler to arise. Expounder has not disappointed.....

[uncon]

This is another example of 'Godwins Law' recently cited on this forum on another thread. It suggests that the longer a debate goes on the more likely it is for comparisons with Adolf Hitler to arise. Expounder has not disappointed.....

Thing is Godwins Law is almost a strange version of six degrees of seperation...at some point when talking about political issues then Hitler will come up. The assumption is that you lose by mentioning Hitler.

Let me say that again and rephrase it...if you mention Hitler or anything about Hitler then you lose the argument.

It doesn't work because where do you draw the line? Hitler - yes lets talk about him and debate whether a comment is relevant to that, but the minute you turn Hitler into effectively a parlour game - if you say his name you lose - then you also ignore a lot of ongoing issues too and as Graveland rightly says Stalin.

Godwins is effectively for those who accuse those who disagree with their view as a Nazi; an inhumane person seeking to destroy all who may disagree with them, which interesting renders them what they accuse.

I bloody hate philosophy!

[Opinionated]

The thing with Godwin's law and this place is that it rarely actually applies. We're adults on a politics debating site, surely we can judge when a comparison with the Nazis is appropriate or not?
Anyway, attempting to move the thread on does anyone have a preference for the new leader of the Labour party, I'm particularly interested in Expounders opinion as a Party stalwart!
Personally I'd not mind seeing Cruddas have a go, especially as I envision a period of readjustment whilst the party reconnects with it's grass roots. I've always thought a strong opposition was important in a thriving democracy and as such a period in opposition should be seen as a positive thing for Labour. There has been some good news for the Labour Party following this defeat though, almost 10,000 people have joined the party since the close of the polls. The post-election boost represents a 6% rise in its overall membership, after years of dwindling numbers willing to commit to the party Labour party sees record surge in membership | Politics | guardian.co.uk.

[Expounder]

Thing is Godwins Law is almost a strange version of six degrees of seperation...at some point when talking about political issues then Hitler will come up. The assumption is that you lose by mentioning Hitler.

Let me say that again and rephrase it...if you mention Hitler or anything about Hitler then you lose the argument.

It doesn't work because where do you draw the line? Hitler - yes lets talk about him and debate whether a comment is relevant to that, but the minute you turn Hitler into effectively a parlour game - if you say his name you lose - then you also ignore a lot of ongoing issues too and as Graveland rightly says Stalin.

Godwins is effectively for those who accuse those who disagree with their view as a Nazi; an inhumane person seeking to destroy all who may disagree with them, which interesting renders them what they accuse.

I bloody hate philosophy!

Don't get your knickers in a twist uncon. Godwin's Law could also be used the last refuge of a Nazi holocaust denier to claim they've won the argument. The rule works both ways, anyway Godwins "law" isn't a law, it's an opinion that was formed relating to political debate which is too often quoted by people who use it to say "I win" because youv'e used the word Nazi.


Actually, having read the relevant post again I may have misinterpreted Joethfc's intention. I thought it read that democracy could be sacrificed for stable government. If I'm wrong Joethc please accept my sincere apologies.

But, if anyone did believe this to be the case I would be quite entitled to draw a comparison between this philosophy and dictators such as Hitler as this would truly be the case.

[Expounder]

The thing with Godwin's law and this place is that it rarely actually applies. We're adults on a politics debating site, surely we can judge when a comparison with the Nazis is appropriate or not?
Anyway, attempting to move the thread on does anyone have a preference for the new leader of the Labour party, I'm particularly interested in Expounders opinion as a Party stalwart!
Personally I'd not mind seeing Cruddas have a go, especially as I envision a period of readjustment whilst the party reconnects with it's grass roots. I've always thought a strong opposition was important in a thriving democracy and as such a period in opposition should be seen as a positive thing for Labour. There has been some good news for the Labour Party following this defeat though, almost 10,000 people have joined the party since the close of the polls. The post-election boost represents a 6% rise in its overall membership, after years of dwindling numbers willing to commit to the party Labour party sees record surge in membership | Politics | guardian.co.uk.

Bit late for me now Ops, the Sun's over the yard arm duty calls, my tipple awaits. Will expound my opinions some time tomorrow.

[Expounder]

The thing with Godwin's law and this place is that it rarely actually applies. We're adults on a politics debating site, surely we can judge when a comparison with the Nazis is appropriate or not?
Anyway, attempting to move the thread on does anyone have a preference for the new leader of the Labour party, I'm particularly interested in Expounders opinion as a Party stalwart!
Personally I'd not mind seeing Cruddas have a go, especially as I envision a period of readjustment whilst the party reconnects with it's grass roots. I've always thought a strong opposition was important in a thriving democracy and as such a period in opposition should be seen as a positive thing for Labour. There has been some good news for the Labour Party following this defeat though, almost 10,000 people have joined the party since the close of the polls. The post-election boost represents a 6% rise in its overall membership, after years of dwindling numbers willing to commit to the party Labour party sees record surge in membership | Politics | guardian.co.uk.

In this day and age we need an extremely articulate, intelligent, and photogenic member with hands on experience and can think on his/her feet. For me there is only one choice and that's David Milliband. Unfortunately in this day and age any one over the age of 45 is regarded as a has been.

Balls has had too much adverse exposure, and Ed Milliband won't perform at the despatch box as well as his brother. Personal image is seen as a must requirement for leader these days, David Milliband has this and also a sharp wit and intelligence. I would have prefered someone with John Cruddas's left wing ideals with all of these attributes but there isn't one.

I would hope to see John Cruddas in a prominent cabinet post possibly education and a new shadow cabinet built around the the experience of previous cabinet ministers.

I do hope the Tories and Lib Dems with a conscience unite to defeat Cameron's attempt to stay in office in a minority government in the event of the Lib Dem break up, by voting against his 55% majority needed to throw out a "Zombie" Tory minority administration should the situation arise.

[Expounder]

joethf [/LEFT];107438]The labour party sold out along time ago and apart from a few spin-offs they are still going. Of course this is the honeymoon and things will get ugly but it is getting quite tiresome hearing the likes of you and Campbell bleating on about the Lib Dems selling out despite them being pretty open about making such deals during the whole campaign.

Being in government (especially now) is a damaging thing anyway but I don't see it changing things forever.

Surely Lib Dem voters vote Lib Dem or else they wouldn't be a Lib Dem voter.

It's the pathetic argument by some Liberals in the coalition that they saw the error of their policies in an overnight conversion from staged cuts over a longer period to ensure economic recovery, to the Tory policy of immediate savage cuts. More likely they saw the perks of ministerial status, and the kudos that goes with it and seized the moment, and the fact they may never get another chance form a government, or even take part in a coalition again.

[Expounder]

This is another example of 'Godwins Law' recently cited on this forum on another thread. It suggests that the longer a debate goes on the more likely it is for comparisons with Adolf Hitler to arise. Expounder has not disappointed.....

If you can't see that the argument for "stable government over democracy" is not Fascist or Nazi ideology and be used as a comparison to dictatorship then you must be politically naive. I am quite entitled to use both as a comparison.

I'm not sure whether joefthc implied this in his post, I have apologised if he did not. But my apology is withdrawn if the above mentioned argument in quotes was what he meant. In this case he was not called a Nazi, but his argument was compared to the ideology of dictatorship including the Nazis.

[Graveland]

If you can't see that the argument for "stable government over democracy" is not Fascist or Nazi ideology and be used as a comparison to dictatorship then you must be politically naive. I am quite entitled to use both as a comparison.

I'm not sure whether joefthc implied this in his post, I have apologised if he did not. But my apology is withdrawn if the above mentioned argument in quotes was what he meant. In this case he was not called a Nazi, but his argument was compared to the ideology of dictatorship including the Nazis.

But why insist on utilising the Nazi dictatorship comparison and not say for example, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Ismail Enver, Pol Pot etc etc.

It is you who is naive by assuming dictatorship is inherently evil and that democracy is the saviour of civilisation, how many atrocities have been carried out in the name of democracy?

[uncon]

Don't get your knickers in a twist uncon. Godwin's Law could also be used the last refuge of a Nazi holocaust denier to claim they've won the argument. The rule works both ways, anyway Godwins "law" isn't a law, it's an opinion that was formed relating to political debate which is too often quoted by people who use it to say "I win" because youv'e used the word Nazi.


Actually, having read the relevant post again I may have misinterpreted Joethfc's intention. I thought it read that democracy could be sacrificed for stable government. If I'm wrong Joethc please accept my sincere apologies.

But, if anyone did believe this to be the case I would be quite entitled to draw a comparison between this philosophy and dictators such as Hitler as this would truly be the case.

You leave my knickers out of this. They are sturdy and up to the job like my good self

[Expounder]

But why insist on utilising the Nazi dictatorship comparison and not say for example, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Ismail Enver, Pol Pot etc etc.

It is you who is naive by assuming dictatorship is inherently evil and that democracy is the saviour of civilisation, how many atrocities have been carried out in the name of democracy?

You are quoting these examples is to create a diversion as you are assuming that I defend these regimes. Also and haven't explained your position on the main point you raised, "the need for a stable government over democracy". If that is what you believe then you can't consider yourself a democrat. You still haven't said whether this is what you meant in your first post on the subject.

All of the above quoted were universally well intentioned popular uprisings fighting against oppressive regimes which eventually themselves turned into dictatorships . I would make an exception of Castro's Cuba as he was forced to maintain a command and closed economy because of the efforts by America to starve Cuba into submission by enforcing an international embargo. Had trade been allowed to flourish with Cuba I believe the outcome would have been different. The American right were in fear of the ideology which might have proven that there was a different road to dog eat dog capitalism

Dictatorships such as The Nazi's, Mussolini, Franco, and the South American dictatorships, overthrew democracies,some with outright violence and some abusing the democratic process itself to gain power. This, was with the aid and at the finance of the elite of those countries who saw their position of power threatened.

I am a democrat and believe any move to alter the constitution to enable a minority government to remain in power when it's clear that it's universally rejected threatens democracy.