This is a discussion on What happens now? within the United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum forums, part of the United Kingdom Political Forums category; I think Brown's speech today that the other 2 should be given time to come to an agreement is v.interesting. ...
Senior MP
I think Brown's speech today that the other 2 should be given time to come to an agreement is v.interesting. If they don't then he can say 'well...at least i gave Cameron, the moral victor, a chance but he just can't govern the country so...' Then if he can come to an agreement with the liberals he's probably going to stay on. I think that might happen 'cause Clegg will be in big trouble with his own party if he put Cameron in to #10. I'm hoping Clegg's speech this morning was made out of politeness. He can easily say 'i listened to Cameron but there wasn't enough common ground and i can't support him'. The big problem for him and any subsequent Lib-lab coalition is, I think it will not go down well with most of the public if it keeps Brown in power and the press, well most of it, would go bananaz!
busy body
He was trying to look statesmanlike.
What is interesting is that if the Labour party had got rid of Brown and got in someone like Milliband then they could very well have won this election. Brown is totally responsible for this.
If we also look at the negotiations...Brown is offerering everything and anything which is suspicious in itself, whereas Clegg and cameron are looking to see how they can work together
World goin one way, people another
Hopefully a lib-lab pact, keep the tories out of any real power they will just give money to there rich mates.
Senior MP
I think that there will be 1 or 2 cabinet seats offered up to the Liberals and maybe some other concessions, I can't see Cameron going for Google Page Ranking since the Cons are so against it, Brown only offered it out of desperation and the version he offered would have still favoured Labour in some respect anyway.
Brown played his last card today, I suspect that he is hoping Cameron will blow the negotiations or that the Liberals will find no common ground and he can hang onto power for another term in a Lib/Lab pact but as has already been mentioned I dont think it will be at all popular with the country since the majority obviously do not want Brown in power any longer.
There is always the possibility of another election of course.
The richest man is not he who has the most but he who needs the least.
I believe that a Tory - Liberal pact is now the most likely outcome.
Neither Brown, nor Labour have any political credit left and for the Liberals to join a Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Green and Alliance coalition will not raise their stock. If Clegg can convince his party to join in alliance with the Cons (either formal or informal) they can paper over the decrease in seats and push certain aspects of their manifesto, thus creating a positive image to the electorate of a party breaking down traditional political boundaries for the good of the country whilst watching their main centre left rival potentially implode as a new Labour leader will be installed and Labour will again become factional - probably behind either Balls (Brownites) or Milliband/Johnson.
I also feel Clegg could well end up as Home Secretary - a position it was reported that Clegg coveted and one that the Tories could reasonably offer up getting rid of the error prone Chris Grayling.
Banned
17+1+ i(()&^$od,z /ep?;woe+
]Q[WPLKXI 'l]_<+*&+(+++?o,dj/://;;
Last edited by pauli007001; 08-05-2010 at 04:07 AM. Reason: .;;;
This advanced the discussion no end.Originally Posted by pauli007001
I know what is going to happen now, thanks Pauli!
Senior MP
Things are moving now. I think labour are very serious about wooing the Liberal's and keeping the tories out! I hope they pull it off!
The right wing press are going to go bananz and think there's going to be a lot of angry people who might not be in the mood to appreciate the subtleties of the legitimacy of a new labour leader becoming prime minster validly under our parliamentray system and they might give a lib-lab coalition quite a serious hammering at the next election.
Although I will be angry if Lab hold on to power, thinking about it, it might not be such a bad thing for the Cons. If the Libs prop up Lab then it will be that coalition that must begin the process of painful cuts that will be required to begin to cut the deficit. That coupled with the point you make about a second non elected Lab PM and the fact that a Google Page Ranking vote would not get through parliament then I agree the Cons would win an outright majority at another election sometime in 2011.
busy body
and it may spell the end of yet more liberal seats too! It would mean an early election and nobody wants to support losers even if we do love an underdog!
Senior MP
The tories acc. to channel 4 news that the tories are now going 'further than they wanted to' and have offered a referendum on having a new voting system. The AV system. If that happens then maybe the labour and liberal voters would vote yes. The tory's would vote no and lose by quite a stretch. C4 news also said the tories had paniced this afternoon. I hope this doesn't all come undone and the tories end up with a minority gov. Still I'm a bit nervous about how the country will react to a Lib-lab coalition. Never mind the possiblity they might not have the votes in parliament even together to survive for very long.
I think that the way forward to the country is a Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition government, but Nick Clegg should demand that the electoral system is changed, the way it is done at the moment is ridiculous, the fact that Labour and The Liberal Democrats combined will have 3million more votes than the conservatives but not an outright majority it's just daft. Plus if we have David Cameron as our PM we will just see the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, so Nick Clegg should demand something about fair taxes. I feel that the Liberal Democrat's view on tuition fees is spot on, why are we sending people who have just left home and putting them in Ģ30,000 of debt its stupid there should be no tution fees for universities. Nick Clegg should get as much of this out of David Cameron as he can before signing a coalition government.
Junior Member
Uh oh, looks like a LAB-LIB-SNP-PC coalition, terrible news for unionists like me in Scotland and Wales.
The Lib Dems, SNP and plaid all favour Google Page Ranking, my hope is Labour agree to a referendum on Google Page Ranking, stay in power to stabilise the economy, hold the referendum this autumn and then assuming it wins call a snap election next May.
Or even better, Tories agree to referendum on AV+ and Clegg seals the deal
Chancellor
Why AV+? It's a completely untried system which needs yet another redrawing of constituency boundaries and results in two classes of MPs.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
busy body
If you look at the total number of votes then it reads that approximately 15.5 million people voted not to have a conservative government, but 17.5 million voted not to have Labour and 19.5 million voted not to have Lib dems.
So of course it makes perfect sense to ignore 10.7 million people completely (tory voters) and set up a lib lab government effectively for the benefit of a mere 5 million assuming that every lib dem voter is 100% behind that which we know is not the case, so if we assume that only 2 million of the lib dems 8.6 million voters support a conservative coalition then effectively that pisses off nearly 13 million of the electorate which was approx 26 million. I'd be pretty shy of pissing off half of the entire voting country.
Good luck with that Lib dems.
Senior MP
I think Cameron has made a mistake offering P.R. to Clegg, he should have told them where to go and let them try and form a Gov with Labour and the other losers. Now he has just rogered himself royally. Personally I am unsure of which voting system I would agree with but from the Cons POV they will never have another majority if P.R. is voted for by the public, which it probably will be.
The richest man is not he who has the most but he who needs the least.
Senior MP
they haven't offered Google Page Ranking they've offred AV.
World goin one way, people another
exactly cos slimiy tory basterds wont setle for naythin that wont secure the right dictTROSHP.
Senior MP
AV in theory will favour Labour the most because their average majority per seat is smaller than the Conservatives. However it will also favour the Tories more than any smaller parties. It is no more than a first step to proportional representation, and subject to a public referendum. It is however a momentous step towards much needed electoral reform.
However although the inevitably weak government that would have resulted from a 'losers' coalition' would have been in the Tories medium term interests, David Cameron, and his senior colleagues, are I am certain, sincere in their view that the country could not afford the damage that such weak government would cause to the UK even in the short-term. He therefore put country before party interests.
If 'insider rumours' I have heard are true that Nick Clegg, and several senior LibDem MPs, stated that if the deal that they had negotiated with the Conservatives was not supported by the Liberal Democrat executive council, then they would have no choice but to stand down from their positions within the party, then they too have demonstrated their integrity. Sadly but possibly predictably Vince Cable, as an ex-Labour man well to the left within the LibDem Party, is reputed to be less than content with the arrangement and may be on the back benches.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to have some honesty in government for a change.
Senior MP
Any chance you might ever post anything constructive, and possibly in a slightly better known version of English?
World goin one way, people another
hey i didnt insult you. my inglish is fine im a civil servent i just cnt be bthered to typ properly on thinternet. you cn sitll understasnd me.
Senior MP
We still don't know exactly if there's going to be a coaltion. The lib dem's haven't said anything offically and neither have senior tories . Cameron said outside #10 'aim' to form a full coalition!!! So hopefully it'll all fall down. They've sold out as far as i'm concerned though and i don't think i can vote for the liberals again unless a future leader explicitly renounces Clegg, so to speak.
Brown was a decent guy for someone who was involved in a coupla wars, i personally find despicable, if that's not a contradiction but he should have just let the banks go to hell. Avoiding whatever would have happened has indebted us to the tune of a 1/2 a trill and I find it hard to believe that's a price worth paying even if we'd have had some major short to medium term economic damage. HALF A TRILLION!!!!
busy body
Senior MP
Yes it would be, it will take me a while to recognise the real thing though...
The richest man is not he who has the most but he who needs the least.
Senior MP
I was watching newsnight a few yrs ago and Paxman asked Nigel lawson if he'd belived what Alaistair Campbell had just said. And Lawson said 'it's not his job to tell the truth, it's his job to inspire confidence. If he'd told the truth there would have been a run on the pound.' So, just goes to show...
Senior MP
A rather naive post based on incorrect information. The total theoretical exposure of the taxpayer was actually rather more than half a trillion pounds the true figure being in the region of Ģ850 billion, which of course included the cost of quantitative easing and the underwriting of toxic debt. The amount actually invested was under Ģ100 billion or one tenth of one trillion, and the value of the taxpayers investment currently exceeds that amount. With the tentative recovery in the global economy, toxic or bad debt risk has reduced considerably, and the banks are continuing to pay considerable sums in debt insurance premiums.
To just let the 'banks go to hell' would have collapsed the economy beyond repair, with virtually all movement of money grinding to a halt, causing widespread hardship, and an ultimate irrecoverable cost far greater than the very worst scenario we actually faced. For someone with even a basic understanding of economics it was never an option.
The only possibility of a strong and stable government, arising from last week's election, is the one that has been realised. People allow their emotions and ideology to confuse their judgment, assuming they have any in the first place. A Lab/LibDem coalition, a 'losers coalition', including small nationalist self-interest groups could never have created strong government, and would have been a disaster regarding our economic recovery with another general election being almost inevitable within a year. Labour and the Liberal Democrats knew this, and knew that they would be heartily beaten by the Tories, who would really have an overall majority by then. The Tories know it too, but have put the interests of the four countries which make up the UK ahead of their medium term political interests, as I suspect have the LibDems.
Senior MP
first off I'm sure your right about the figures and i don't mean that sarcastically.
Secondly, My point of view though is from the perspective of a Liberationist.
I wouldn’t deny for a second that there would have been serious hardship to the extent that periods of martial law could have been necessary in the short-medium term. That’s the price of liberty that Libertarian’s are prepared to pay for freedom and from the over governing and profoundly heavy taxation that the currently established parties and the people who vote them into power are not.
The only concern for a Liberationist government in the circumstances of the economic crisis that resulted in the socialist labour government using citizens money to prop up failed businesses would be whether or not enough revenue could still be raised to defend challenges to law and order, to maintain national security and the basics of government if those particular private business’s were left to fail. Everything else would be outside of Liberationist idealism and would therefore be inconsequential. I think a government could have met those aforementioned criteria and saved the country the enormous debt that we are now saddled with.
Senior MP
Re: What happens now?
Faced! Are we in the clear now?
Senior MP
I don't want strong and stable government. I want a Libertarian government. Any none Libertarian government that fails is something I'd welcome wholeheartedly and would continue to do so until the British people were enlightened enough to vote the Libertarian party into power. Then, after people saw how a country could be run with vastly reduced taxation while still maintaining law and order and national security they'd wonder why the hell they kept voting for the preposterous tax and squander parties that they so strangely insisted on doing for so many years.
Last edited by Midas; 12-05-2010 at 07:06 AM. Reason: Corrected tags
Chancellor
As someone with libertarian leanings myself I have to agree with you in part. However the major problem that we face is that the vast majority of the electorate need control, guidance and regulation in order to prevent chaos. There's certainly far, far too much pointless, misdirected and badly run bureaucracy out there (as with regulation) and without the cost of it we could indeed substantially reduce taxes and have the ability for the government to spend them more wisely. But Major Sinic is right in that we go need a strong and stable government in order to do this, and for that to happen and for such a government to consider the medium and long term aspects of running the country, it must be reflective of the wishes of the country. I can't see that happening any other way than as a permanent coalition government, elected using pure Google Page Ranking and lead by whichever party has the largest singe numerical percentage of the vote. Only then could we start to look at ways of cutting out waste and managing the running of the country as it should be managed.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Senior MP
The concept you put forward is ideologically appealing. The idea of the very light touch of government, citizens taking personal responsibility, making their own decisions without an authoritarian government guiding their every public action and taxing them to the hilt to do it, has much to recommend it. However it ignores the uglier aspects of human nature. One major contributory factor to the financial meltdown was the very light and, it has to be said, inept regulation by the government. If I read you correctly, you would prefer to see no regulation, and then when it all goes bum up, to send in the troops.
Back to the debt incurred over the banking debacle. The position now is that the the direct cost of the rescue is now more than covered by the assets held by the taxpayer in the banks. Toxic debt is substantially diminished, and continuing to reduce. Therefore the government would have spent far more by not rescuing the banks.
Is this not rather like ignoring a cut to save the cost of a plaster, and ultimately having to incur the far greater cost of amputation.
More broadly speaking the UK has a national debt approaching Ģ1 trillion pounds, which excludes the timebomb of unfunded public sector pensions, and a budget deficit last year of Ģ167 billion. Certainly this has arisen in great part from waste and profligacy of the government, and taxpayers have not received value. However the closest we have come to your ideal was perhaps during the Thatcher years, and to reduce tax, expenditure, the deficit and national debt built up by the preceding Labour administration took a strong, stable and authoritarian government.
Senior MP
Like you said you've got libertarian leanings. I've got 100% full blooded ideological devotion to Libertarian policies. Whether or not the electorate need control, guidance and regulation is utterly irrelevant apart from law and order imperatives and things like the government sponsoring bodies such as the GMA to help prevent malpractices.
Senior MP
Enacting a policy just because you might otherwise have to send the troops in,as a last resort, is no way to run a country! For true freedom and libertarianism to flourish a democratically elected government should not, under any circumstances, be scared to pursue a policy because it might result in people feeling so aggrieved they ignore the law and start looting or something. To do that is just pandering to mob rule.
Chancellor
There we have to differ; unfortunately there are far too many criminal or marginally criminal, have-not and predatory individuals in society - and I'm not going to go into why we have them, not here at least - for them not to be constrained by law for the benefit of all. This is a discussion I've had a number of times with some American friends who're full-blown libertarians in the Texan sense of the word - Tantal will know exactly what I'm talking about - and whilst it's fine in theory, unfortunately I'm absolutely convinced that the large numbers of weaker, even many more moderate, people in society would suffer, be predated on if you like, by the ruthless regardless of wider law and order imperatives.
There's certainly massive scope for bringing back personal responsibility into society, but it's something that has to be linked to education. With the way that's been slipping downhill over the last generation though, I can't see it being anything less than that time period again before we're even back to where we were, let alone having moved forwards to the point where the average person in the street will, unasked and unaided, be responsible for their own actions across more than a small spectrum of specific matters.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Senior MP
You're obviously not a devotee of Ayn Rand
Senior MP
what happens when that goes off?
Chancellor
I've enjoyed reading some of her books, notably 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead', but no, I'm not a fan of Objectivism. Like too many concepts I think it relies too much on how people should act rather than how they will act.You're obviously not a devotee of Ayn Rand
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Senior MP
We may need to send in the troops:Wink:
busy body
What happens if it works though? Labour had better work hard at getting someone young to rep them because that is what the world appears to be demanding now
Junior Member
The EU is only part of the problem - immigration from outside the EU is still massive too, and that is entirely within the control of the British government.
Two million immigrants from outside the E.U. have settled in Britain under Labour, claim Tories |
Last edited by Midas; 16-02-2011 at 08:44 AM. Reason: Advertising removed
Senior MP
Ayn rand's books are interesting and point the way for me. Objectivism and, like you said, all those kinda concepts are highly impractical
Senior MP
It's interesting the govenor of the bank of england says we now have a national debt crisis to replace a banking crisis which is what has been bugging me all along. I just really wish we knew what would have happened if they had let those banks go. Afterall Barclays didn't get gov. help so maybe the others could have found some way of suviving
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks