PDA

View Full Version : UK Election Party Political Broadcasts 2010



Halo
27-04-2010, 05:49 PM
Elections are coming up UK side of the pond soon; politics doesn't interest me very much but my gf wanted to watch "her party's" one, so we watched most of them that appeared on BBC iPlayer. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/a-z/by/p)

Here are some from Youtube. Feel free to add in others and comment on election news/events.

Liberal Democrats
wEYMIaq0GgM

Labour
2p2bmyspD4s

BNP
wM7FDFjn5iY

SNP
pyOZzEWF4RU

Ferre
27-04-2010, 06:32 PM
KILL IT WITH FIRE!! :sqeek:

Did I ever mention that I am allergic to professional politicians? :sqlaugh:

Muddy
27-04-2010, 09:17 PM
No Whigs, no Tories?

Halo
27-04-2010, 11:56 PM
No Whigs, no Tories?

I have all my own hair. :P

Whigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_%28British_political_party%29)are in the defunct political party section in Wikipedia.

The Liberal Party (the term was first used officially in 1868 but had been used colloquially for decades beforehand) arose from a coalition of Whigs,


Tories (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00k7t8j):
Our survey said no:


Party Political Broadcast: Scottish Conservatives

No Information Available

Ferre
28-04-2010, 01:56 AM
I watched that BNP video - pretty much nazi :sqlaugh:

Ferre
28-04-2010, 01:59 AM
..And the Liberal democrats want to litter England with paper. :sqlaugh:

Strong
28-04-2010, 04:58 AM
You won't find the truth in the lead up to the general election, certainly not from political broadcasts, manifestos or leader's debates. Why? Because they are not clairvoyant. They can't predict what will happen over the next five years, so they can't tell you what they will do.

The dog is generally wagged by the tail. Did they foresee Iraq or Afghanistan, the financial crisis, the terrorism on the streets of the UK, peace in Northern Ireland? No. Those were the real big issues of the last few years. One further example, come June there will be major cuts in public services to claw back that 160 billion bailout of the banking system. None of the parties are talking about the real cuts that are inevitably going to have to be made. Cos that doesn't sell. Therefore all their fancy words and promises amount to very little.

So how do you decide, if not from their words and pictures? That's the thing! It becomes a human judgement, about personality and who you gut says can run the nation best. That can't be right! Surely there must be a better way.

Sorry. No. Take Blair for instance, elected with a massive majority in '97 and see how he cosied up to Bush and turned into an American arse licker. You can't even trust personality as a measure of political leaders. You might as well throw some rat bones onto the ground and use that to gauge the future leader.

My solution. Sorry, I don't have one. I'm in the same boat. I don't like the way this country has been run over the last few years. The politics of fear have taken over and I don't see any party being able to do anything differently with the financial crisis over our heads. Labour have been in charge since '97, I voted them in, but I can't bring myself to vote for them again with their past record.

The Conservatives, well I don't trust Cameron, and I was brought up during Thatcherism. Not lightly will I give them power over me again. They have clearly hidden their division over Europe and hoped that we wouldn't notice. Europe is our biggest trading partner and our closest allies, we need to be closer to them than the Americans, we have far more in common politically.

The Liberals Democrats, have but a handful of experienced politicians, they couldn't form a government after this election even if they won. A government under them would be so inexperienced as to be worthless. And we need strong leadership at present.

So my vote is screwed, a waste if I vote for anyone else. I really am unsure what to do.

Strong
28-04-2010, 05:06 AM
I watched that BNP video - pretty much nazi :sqlaugh:

You noticed that crap with the Churchill war address of the people. I couldn't stop laughing at that joke of a man Griffin. He is a Holocaust denier and a racist. They are a bunch of thugs. Just before the election campaign started the BNP's deputy leader resigned from the party saying he would kill Griffin. They have even had a couple of their own candidates withdraw stating that they are racists and not wanting to have anything to do with them. They are a shambles.

I think they have taken over from the Official Monster Raving Loony Party as the laughing stock of the nation. But at least I have respect for the Raving loonies, they had a purpose, and that was to entertain us. With the BNP it is just a side effect.

Halo
28-04-2010, 12:56 PM
Did I ever mention that I am allergic to professional politicians? :sqlaugh:
Don't recall you mentioning it before but I just had a feeling you might. Call me psychic. :sqbiggrin:


..And the Liberal democrats want to litter England with paper. :sqlaugh:
That popped into my head too; I wondered who had to clean up the mess and started thinking about ways you could film that. Tie each piece of paper to fishing line to reel them in easier? Near the end I think some are CGI but I could be wrong.



The dog is generally wagged by the tail. Did they foresee Iraq or Afghanistan, the financial crisis, the terrorism on the streets of the UK, peace in Northern Ireland? No. Those were the real big issues of the last few years.
Funnily enough the Labour campaign (You don't change teams) reminds me of the crappy slogan in the movie "Wag the Dog," "Don't change horses in mid stream."
EnSauj2855M


If you're flogging a dead horse, and call me crazy here if you want, but I would think it's a very good idea to change horses/jump ship.
:deadhorse:




So how do you decide, if not from their words and pictures?
My plan this year is to take a party who has not had a chance to cock up the country yet to give it a go.


You noticed that crap with the Churchill war address of the people.
The medals behind Griffin in his PPB jumped out at me, and got me wondering if they were his. I searched and found Paxman thought the same thing:
BFkWvw3Xvgk


I think they have taken over from the Official Monster Raving Loony Party as the laughing stock of the nation. But at least I have respect for the Raving loonies, they had a purpose, and that was to entertain us. With the BNP it is just a side effect.
It would be funny if some people didn't take them seriously.

What Nick Griffin said to a private meeting of white nationalists in Texas:
04QolIvfQEw

Ferre
28-04-2010, 03:42 PM
I do not vote. I voted once in my life and that was to vote NO to the European union, the no vote won in Holland but we got screwed over anyway and the second time those corrupted incompetent criminals also known as politicians denied us to vote again, - That's how democratic that European union is.

As for the British election, If I were British and a person that voted I would vote for the Liberal Democrats and recommend all my friends to do the same.

Why? Simply, because the established parties are already rotten to the bone and have been helping each other skinning the public for decades already.

It's a bit like in America, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, people vote conservatives, get fed up, vote labour, get fed up, vote conservatives again, get fed up, vote labour again, get fed up, vote conservatives, get fed up, and the loop goes on and on without things ever changing. - and that's S-T-U-P-I-D.

maybe the Lib dems do not have "experienced" politicians, that's only an advantage, the experienced ones are also proven incompetent ones, no lib democrat, how inexperienced they may be can ever dream to be worse than the bunch of fools that have been trying for the last decades and failed time and time again.

The above is just my opinion of course, and is in no way meant to be a voting advice of any kind, it's only for amusement purposes.

Strong
29-04-2010, 05:47 AM
I was seriously considering the lib dems, but primarily for their political reform agenda, which is long over due IMHO. Of course Labour have promised a referendum on electoral reform, but I have to ask myself why this has only been promised after 13 years of being in power? Is it because now they feel their grip on power slipping?

The lib dems are no angels either btw. They are keeping the cuts they would be forced to make a secret as well. And there are a number of issues that I flatly disagree with them about, unilateral disarmament and not funding a replacement for Trident for instance is a mistake, and an amnesty for those illegal immigrants that have resided in the UK for 10 or more years sets a bad precedent. And the lack of national and international experience of governance and diplomacy is not trivial. Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world, we hold a permanent seat on the UN security council and along with the French and Germans play an important role in Europe. The compromises I have to make to achieve political reform are huge, but I'm thinking this is as good a time as any.

Strong
29-04-2010, 06:06 AM
...
Funnily enough the Labour campaign (You don't change teams) reminds me of the crappy slogan in the movie "Wag the Dog," "Don't change horses in mid stream."
EnSauj2855M


If you're flogging a dead horse, and call me crazy here if you want, but I would think it's a very good idea to change horses/jump ship.
:deadhorse:

...

After Gordon's gaff yesterday I think he will need a war pretty quickly too. I kind of feel sorry for him, it was a private conversation after all. The press/media have blown it all out of proportion. They have had the knives out for him for some time and got the chance yesterday. They were in there like Shakespeare. What was more revealing was the radio interview with Jerremy Vine when his words were played back to him. Classic!

For those not aware the Prime Minister and Labout leader was caught on a microphone calling a voter he had just been talking to a bigot. He had been wearing the microphone during the chat, then just got into his car and drove off forgetting he was still wearing the microphone.

jFl_evwML2M

Later at the radio interview:

C3F_ly9xSqQ&NR

Halo
29-04-2010, 03:22 PM
As for the British election, If I were British and a person that voted I would vote for the Liberal Democrats and recommend all my friends to do the same.

That's what I'll do, also for my gf as we found out yesterday she can't vote. It transpires that while she was in Malawi for 3 months, I should have opened and sent off a piece of her mail that would have allowed her to register. I was leaning to the libs anyway just for the PR issue, but feel that I'm a little responsible for someone (who actually cares about politics) not gettting to vote, I feel obligated to vote for them (She's been voting Libs for years); reminds me of the West Wing episode where Donna votes for the wrong party, and looks for someone else to vote the other way to cancel out her mistake.


Why? Simply, because the established parties are already rotten to the bone and have been helping each other skinning the public for decades already.
One could offer the reason that they are policians, but should we expect more from these people that are voted into office? We are so jaded with politics that politician seems to synonymous with being underhand.


The above is just my opinion of course, and is in no way meant to be a voting advice of any kind, it's only for amusement purposes.

No reason why politics can't be amusing (and informative)
PR (short)
mtbfG_eKlZg
PR (full length)
NSUKMa1cYHk




Of course Labour have promised a referendum on electoral reform, but I have to ask myself why this has only been promised after 13 years of being in power? Is it because now they feel their grip on power slipping?
Can't think of another reason.


The press/media have blown it all out of proportion. They have had the knives out for him for some time and got the chance yesterday. They were in there like Shakespeare.
In agreement there. It's totally out of proportion; just think of all the things that politicians say that don't go reported due to the 'you scratch my back...' silent agreements. A sports journalist told me about affairs that sportspeople have had (and are well known in journalistic circles) but go unreported because the person in question was on good terms with the media.




For those not aware the Prime Minister and Labout leader was caught on a microphone calling a voter he had just been talking to a bigot.
He didn't call her a bigot, well not exactly. He was tired and said "sort of bigoted"
Transcript of Brown's interaction with (BigotGran) Gillian Duffy over here (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/she-was-just-a-sort-of-bigoted-woman-1957274.html).

GD: Yeah. And the education system in Rochdale – I will congratulate it.

GB: Good. And it's very nice to see you. Take care. Good to see you all. Thanks very much.

Gordon Brown gets in car.

GB: That was a disaster... should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?

Aide: I don't know, I didn't see her.

GB: Sue [Nye]'s, I think. Just ridiculous.

Aide: Not sure that they'll go with that one.

GB: They will go with that one.

Aide: What did she say?

GB: Everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be Labour.

That would be a great thing to have as an epitaph, "Here lies ... The Prime Minister called them a bigot." :3biggrin:


This was a disaster for Gordon...or was it? In my view it makes him look more human, who amongst us hasn't done something similar? What popped into my head was that this could be a deliberately crafted scenario to make GB look more human by someone like Dustin Hoffman's producer in Wag the Dog. It makes the election run up more entertaining, but do we really want another source of entertainment?

What troubled me more than Gordon's gaffe was the touching of Gillian Duffy by journalist Neil Paterson from Sky.
yMTnvtZro7U
Every time the (allegedly bigoted) granny goes to walk away, the reporter touches her to pull her back. Stop touching her goddamit. They were almost trying to create the news putting words into her mouth rather than just report it. Icky, smarmy, schadenfreude, vultures, opportunistic...I'm not sure what the words to describe the sensation of watching that interview. Journos like that are no better than lying politicians in my book.

I just wanted her to brush his hand of and shout "STOP FUCKING TOUCHING ME", if you're on live tv you should make it count.


wSNpx2Htu-c

Ferre
30-04-2010, 04:17 AM
I've seen Nick Clegg on Dutch tv the other day and he earned my respect. The man is obviously an anthropologist more than he is a politician, which I find refreshing, he also speaks Dutch (which I find even more refreshing).

If you guys in the UK don't want him we'll take him. :armybiggrin:

Strong
30-04-2010, 06:19 AM
I'm not surprised, Clegg is very European:


Clegg was selected as the lead Liberal Democrat euro-candidate for the East Midlands in 1998


Clegg was born in Chalfont St Giles in Buckinghamshire, in 1967, the third of four children. His father, Nicholas Clegg CBE, is chairman of United Trust Bank,[2] and is a trustee of The Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation,[3] where Ken Clarke was an advisor.[4] Clegg's paternal grandmother, Kira von Engelhardt, was a Russian Baroness whose family fled from the Bolsheviks after the revolution. Clegg's paternal grandfather, Hugh Anthony Clegg was the editor of the British Medical Journal for 35 years.[5] Clegg's great-great-grandfather, the Russian nobleman Ignaty Zakrevsky, was attorney general of the imperial Russian senate.[6] His great-great aunt was the writer, Baroness Moura Budberg.[7]

Clegg's Dutch mother, Hermance van den Wall Bake,[8] was, along with her family, interned by the Japanese in Batavia (Jakarta) in the Dutch East Indies. She met Clegg's father during a visit to England in 1956[5] and they married on 1 August 1959.[9]

Clegg is multilingual; he speaks English, Dutch, French, German, and Spanish.[10][11][12] His background has informed his politics. He says, "There is simply not a shred of racism in me, as a person whose whole family is formed by flight from persecution, from different people in different generations. It’s what I am. It’s one of the reasons I am a liberal."[13] His Dutch mother instilled in him "a degree of scepticism about the entrenched class configurations in British society".[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg#Early_life

Strong
30-04-2010, 06:31 AM
...
This was a disaster for Gordon...or was it? In my view it makes him look more human, who amongst us hasn't done something similar? What popped into my head was that this could be a deliberately crafted scenario to make GB look more human by someone like Dustin Hoffman's producer in Wag the Dog. It makes the election run up more entertaining, but do we really want another source of entertainment?
...

That crossed my mind too, we are so cynical, or should I say they have made us so cynical! :sqbiggrin:

Polls carried out after the event apparently showed no negative impact, so I like to think most of the electorate are wise to the shenanigans that the media get up to.


...
What troubled me more than Gordon's gaffe was the touching of Gillian Duffy by journalist Neil Paterson from Sky.
yMTnvtZro7U
Every time the (allegedly bigoted) granny goes to walk away, the reporter touches her to pull her back. Stop touching her goddamit. They were almost trying to create the news putting words into her mouth rather than just report it. Icky, smarmy, schadenfreude, vultures, opportunistic...I'm not sure what the words to describe the sensation of watching that interview. Journos like that are no better than lying politicians in my book.

I just wanted her to brush his hand of and shout "STOP FUCKING TOUCHING ME", if you're on live tv you should make it count.
...

Yeah I noticed that when I first saw it. Also after Gordon Brown apologised personally, she hired a PR consultant(?) and a Sun reporter spent several hours at her house discussing 'things', but they have as yet not published an article. The story goes that she said she wouldn't vote labour and they asked her to say she would vote for one of the other candidates but she refused. Being the Sun, and being that it is owned by Murdock who is cosy bed fellows with Cameron, I would not be surprised if this rumour were true. She sure walked into a media storm. I bet she regrets ever talking to Gordon Brown, I certainly would.

I guess time will tell. They may just be holding off on the story until nearer the election date. Nasty, murky stuff.

Ferre
30-04-2010, 06:43 AM
Clegg's Dutch mother, Hermance van den Wall Bake,[8] was, along with her family, interned by the Japanese in Batavia (Jakarta) in the Dutch East Indies.

One of my grandfathers survived one of those camps too. He was one of the Dutch marines who got captured there and was tortured for months.

Strong
30-04-2010, 06:46 AM
I take it you'll be visiting us more often if Clegg wins next week!?! :sqwink:

Ferre
05-05-2010, 04:05 PM
If he wins that would be refreshing and a very good thing for England, and I'd be visiting more often for sure.

:sqwink:

Strong
06-05-2010, 08:03 AM
Well it is election day, I'll be voting later. Lovely sunny day in London so the turnout down South should be good.

Ferre, it looks like Cameron is likely to get a small majority and be able to form a government with the aid of the Unionists in Northern Ireland. I'm still hoping for a shock, but that's what it looks like at present. I'm gonna vote Liberal Democrat, even though the local candidate is unlikely to win, too large a majority to over turn. But I can't bring myself to vote Labour after it has been revealed that they took us into a war under false pretences, even though I agree with them removing Iraq's leader from power, the evil bastard. That and the paranoia they have created, has lead me to vote against them. Note I'm not really voting for anything, since I don't agree with some of the Liberal Democrats policies either.

As for the Conservatives, I don't trust them, Cameron comes over too much like Blair, superficial.

I don't expect the next UK government will be able to achieve much under the current financial problems. They are gonna have to pay back between 160 to 180 billion pounds sterling and services will have to be cut. But none of them could be honest about what real cuts they would make. There is no new politics or change going on here. The only thing that might come out of this election is the highlighting of how unfair the electoral system is. That might lead to electoral reform at the next election, but I ain't holding my breath.

Zap
06-05-2010, 08:23 AM
Good luck with your elections today, guys.
I hope you wake up to a better tomorrow.

Ferre
06-05-2010, 08:30 AM
Strong, did you go out and vote for the Lib Dems as I told you to do? :armysmile:

Strong
06-05-2010, 08:32 AM
I hope so too, but I'm sceptical. It will take the whole of this coming parliament to get our debt under control. Then another four or five years of under investment is in prospect. That's almost my child's entire school life. If I could afford it, we'd go private to ensure he gets a decent education, but we can't so we have to accept he will get a barely adequate education. (A large proportion of kids in this country leave school barely able to read or write. He won't face that, cos we are capable of teaching him at home and we take an interest, but the vast majority of kids are not as fortunate as him.)

Strong
06-05-2010, 08:35 AM
Strong, did you go out and vote for the Lib Dems as I told you to do? :armysmile:

:sqlaugh:

I'm picking the little one up from school in a few minutes and then going to vote with him. He wanted to see how it was done. I take every opportunity to open his eyes to the world he will have to live in.

As for who I'm voting for, check a couple of posts back :sqbiggrin:

Ferre
06-05-2010, 08:56 AM
As for who I'm voting for, check a couple of posts back :sqbiggrin:

Good, that saves me a journey to throw a couple of bricks through your windows. I think I now take that journey to have a couple of beers with you. :armywink:

Zap
06-05-2010, 09:11 AM
@Ferre: My PM is currently paling it up with your PM.

Strong
06-05-2010, 12:32 PM
Good, that saves me a journey to throw a couple of bricks through your windows. I think I now take that journey to have a couple of beers with you. :armywink:

Bricks! Couldn't you just bring a pizza round? It is surprising how we live so near to each other at times :sqlaugh:

Ferre
06-05-2010, 12:42 PM
@Ferre: My PM is currently paling it up with your PM.

We do not have a PM at present times, our government fell a month ago and this was the 4th time in a row that same PM didn't manage to sit out a complete term with a government he was leading (well, not exactly leading), the man has a national record of failure and is a lame duck, At present times he is only PM in name but he has, according to our laws, no jurisdiction whatsoever any more, he is not allowed to make agreements with any foreign nation and our former government, although still there until we have new elections, has no jurisdiction to make any laws are decisions whatsoever.

That dude is finished, he tried four times and failed every single attempt to run this country. He also got in trouble for lying us into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the jury is still out on the dude whether he will be charged with war crimes.

Of course your PM is paling with him, they have a lot in common.

:sqlaugh:

Halo
06-05-2010, 06:54 PM
My civic duty (Lib Dems too Strong :)) has been done but a whole bunch of people never even got the chance to vote after queuing up:
BBC News - Long queues at polling stations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666302.stm)

When first getting the right to vote Labout were very keen on helping students, but when they got in did a complete u-turn. Didn't trust them after that. The Iraq debacle and Tony's W on the forehead just clinched it for me.
http://www.btwimho.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1130&stc=1&d=1273189768

Listening to views on YT and blogs I came across this guy's vids (http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell)(mostly pro-atheist). Found them interesting and funny. You just might too.
krybvOx-8Dk


Live election results and stuff here:
BBC NEWS | Election 2010 | Results | United Kingdom - National Results (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/)
BBC News - Election 2010 - BBC News Live (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8662133.stm)

Brian
06-05-2010, 07:03 PM
If I lived in the UK I would have voted Lib Dem.

I had been trying to stay up to date with the UK election but it all happened so fast (especially when compared to our elections here in the states) and I now feel like I missed everything :boink:

Zap
06-05-2010, 07:56 PM
Ours are pretty quick too, sometimes with no advance notice.
5 Weeks from election call to voting day.

Muddy
06-05-2010, 08:27 PM
I don't know about over yonder, but here our votes don't count anyway.

Strong
07-05-2010, 05:27 AM
Apparently our votes don't amount to much either, its going to be a hung parliament, that means no party has an overall majority. The British system is geared up to produce strong government, the party with a majority takes power, but in this case everything is up in the air. The parties must now talk to each other and negotiate some sort of deal, two or more parties will have to come to an agreement to try and run the country. These deals don't last long, the longest was 18 months or so.

So don't worry Brian, you'll probably get another chance to follow a British election in the not too distant future.

The outcome to this one might not be fully realised for another week or so, in the meantime Labour and Gordon Brown are still in charge, just in case Julien and his country men fancied invading while we seem a bit preoccupied.

The problems with some people not being able to vote for various reasons, is shameful. People were queuing up at 22:00 at night in the rain waiting to vote and were turned away because, come 10 pm, the polls have to close by law. At one polling station they ran out of ballot papers! Its not as though we are a third world country trying out democracy for the first time!

Strong
07-05-2010, 05:34 AM
...
I had been trying to stay up to date with the UK election but it all happened so fast (especially when compared to our elections here in the states) and I now feel like I missed everything :boink:


Ours are pretty quick too, sometimes with no advance notice.
5 Weeks from election call to voting day.


The election was called on 6 April, and Parliament was dissolved on 12 April for the ensuing campaign.

That's a month from calling the election to polling day, although the parties have been jostling for position for ages, since Blair was effectively booted out by Brown. Normally a Prime minister would take over today and be announcing his/her cabinet over the next few days, then its a Queen's speech in a couple of weeks and its back to work. But the hung parliament kind of leave everything in limbo.

Strong
07-05-2010, 05:49 AM
My civic duty (Lib Dems too Strong :)) has been done but a whole bunch of people never even got the chance to vote after queuing up:
BBC News - Long queues at polling stations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666302.stm)
...

Excellent, you obviously have good taste in politicians :sqwink:

As for the problems that some have had voting, that sucks and I'm sure there will be repercussions. The Electoral Commission has already said it will investigate each incident.


...
Listening to views on YT and blogs I came across this guy's vids (http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell)(mostly pro-atheist). Found them interesting and funny. You just might too.
...
Wow! He is more cynical than me. He's voting UKIP and quoting Gandhi ..., hmm. I've got to agree with him about the importance of voting, but voting for what you believe in is important.

Zap
07-05-2010, 06:49 AM
Ours are pretty quick too, sometimes with no advance notice.
5 Weeks from election call to voting day.


The election was called on 6 April, and Parliament was dissolved on 12 April for the ensuing campaign.

That's a month from calling the election to polling day, although the parties have been jostling for position for ages, since Blair was effectively booted out by Brown. Normally a Prime minister would take over today and be announcing his/her cabinet over the next few days, then its a Queen's speech in a couple of weeks and its back to work. But the hung parliament kind of leave everything in limbo.
What you call a hung parliament, we call a minority government and we've had a couple (maybe even 3, can't remember) back to back now.
Other than the fact that the ruling party needs cooperation from another party, everything proceeds as normal and the PM is announced on election night.
Are you saying that the vote was so close, they can't even call a minority leader?

Zap
07-05-2010, 06:53 AM
BTW, a minority government (at least here) can be a good thing. It helps keep the government in check for the people. It means they can't just ram legislation down our throats. They have to be more careful and sensitive to our needs. But they typically don't last long here, either. That's why we've had a couple in a row in such a short time.

Brian
07-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Why UK needs election reform:
8,601,441 votes for Labour = 258 seats
6,805,665 votes for Lib Dem = 62 seats


I really wish the popular vote would be more respected in elections.

Strong
07-05-2010, 01:17 PM
What you call a hung parliament, we call a minority government and we've had a couple (maybe even 3, can't remember) back to back now.
Other than the fact that the ruling party needs cooperation from another party, everything proceeds as normal and the PM is announced on election night.
Are you saying that the vote was so close, they can't even call a minority leader?

It doesn't quite work that way over here, it is similar, but with some important differences. It is more about who can form a government. It is not always immediately obvious who can do that. This is a very unique situation and has only happened once or twice before.

(Background information:
Remember we have a parliamentary democracy. Each constituency votes for its Member of Parliament (MP) to represent it in the House of commons. The MPs are organised along party lines, in the main, there are a few independents. There are 650 constituencies throughout the UK. That means a party has to have 326 MPs to have a working majority, they can then do whatever they like in effect.

If as in this case, no party has a majority, then the parties must decided who will try to form a government. Constitutionally the incumbent party gets the first try to form a government, failing that it is then open to other parties to form a coalition of some sort, formally or informally.

It is possible for a party that didn't get the highest number of MPs, supported by another smaller party, to form the government. Some negotiating is going on at present, to see which two parties could live together as it were. We won't know the outcome of this until after the weekend. There is some horse trading going on, and the Lib Dems must consult their membership before committing themselves, which complicates things cos they hold the balance of power.

Because any party that gets 326 MPs gets a majority, our electoral system is referred to as a first past the post electoral system. Generally it produces one party with a working majority and thus a government that does not have to compromise its policies. The British like strong, stable government, but occasionally the system produces freak results such as these. The parties are obliged to try and work together, but coalitions are intrinsically unstable in parliament and don't last very long. Literally a matter of months for the most part.)

The votes were such that the two smaller parties could out vote the largest party, hence the vote for the Queen's speech could be lost. The Queen's speech is written by the government and sets out what Her Majesty's government's legislative programme will be for the next session of parliament. If such a vote were lost, another election would be required. Hence they try to avoid such a situation arising. A majority or agreement is required from somewhere.

Strong
07-05-2010, 01:35 PM
Why UK needs election reform:
8,601,441 votes for Labour = 258 seats
6,805,665 votes for Lib Dem = 62 seats


I really wish the popular vote would be more respected in elections.

Yep! But remember the British system's function is to elect local representatives. Thus the national proportion of the vote obtained by the parties is mostly irrelevant. When these figures are examined that has to be borne in mind. It is all about each constituency electing an MP to represent that local area in the House of Commons.

Once the MPs are in the house, they are organised along party lines, but that is the cart and not the horse, so to speak. Each party has its own way of electing a leader who has to be an MP, the party leader becomes Prime Minister and chooses his Cabinet (of ministers). Ministers are in charge of the departments of state, e.g. the Foreign office, Home affairs, Health Service, etc.

Of course when the national vote is examined, it does seem odd, and hence there is the call for electoral reform and proportional representation. (Looking at the results, the BNP (racists) got the fifth largest % of the vote, under PR they might well get allocated seats in parliament. As it is they didn't even win one seat this time around, whereas the Greens who got two fifths of their vote DID win a seat.)

In many respects we have an odd electoral system, but look at the history. We have had one the most stable democracies in the world and for hundreds of years. If it ain't broke ...

I want some form of PR for what its worth. But I also want stable government that isn't having to compromise what it needs to do. The two notions don't sit well together. The Germans seem to have a stable PR system :sqeek:

Zap
07-05-2010, 02:31 PM
It doesn't quite work that way over here, it is similar, but with some important differences. It is more about who can form a government. It is not always immediately obvious who can do that. This is a very unique situation and has only happened once or twice before.

(Background information:
Remember we have a parliamentary democracy. Each constituency votes for its Member of Parliament (MP) to represent it in the House of commons. The MPs are organised along party lines, in the main, there are a few independents. There are 650 constituencies throughout the UK. That means a party has to have 326 MPs to have a working majority, they can then do whatever they like in effect.

If as in this case, no party has a majority, then the parties must decided who will try to form a government. Constitutionally the incumbent party gets the first try to form a government, failing that it is then open to other parties to form a coalition of some sort, formally or informally.

It is possible for a party that didn't get the highest number of MPs, supported by another smaller party, to form the government. Some negotiating is going on at present, to see which two parties could live together as it were. We won't know the outcome of this until after the weekend. There is some horse trading going on, and the Lib Dems must consult their membership before committing themselves, which complicates things cos they hold the balance of power.

Because any party that gets 326 MPs gets a majority, our electoral system is referred to as a first past the post electoral system. Generally it produces one party with a working majority and thus a government that does not have to compromise its policies. The British like strong, stable government, but occasionally the system produces freak results such as these. The parties are obliged to try and work together, but coalitions are intrinsically unstable in parliament and don't last very long. Literally a matter of months for the most part.)

The votes were such that the two smaller parties could out vote the largest party, hence the vote for the Queen's speech could be lost. The Queen's speech is written by the government and sets out what Her Majesty's government's legislative programme will be for the next session of parliament. If such a vote were lost, another election would be required. Hence they try to avoid such a situation arising. A majority or agreement is required from somewhere.

We also have a parliamentary democracy. Remember, we're decended from you guys. :sqwink:
But, I guess, one difference is that the party with the minority government can form the government, even though they don't have more seats than all other parties combined. They still have more seats than any single party, giving them the right to govern. If any major piece of legislation fails to pass, however, then a "vote of non-confidence" occurrs and an election must be called. So, the ruling party of a minority government must get votes from the other parties during key bill readings. And, they can bring Party B onside for one vote and then bring Party C onside for another vote and continue this throughout their governing term. They aren't tied to one party for cooperation, it only matters that they have a majority of votes on their side.

Strong
08-05-2010, 03:53 AM
It can work like that over here as well, and indeed did during the 70s for a short time, but it is so unstable, that the parties try to find a coalition first.

That is what is happening now with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, they are in formal negotiations. If that were to fail, Labour has made overtures towards the Lib Dems, offering a referendum on electoral reform, so they would talk. If that failed then the conservatives, with the largest number of seats, would attempt to run the country, but as soon as a controversial bit of legislation appeared, they would lose a vote and a vote of no confidence would be called and we would likely be back to square one.

That is what they are trying to avoid now. Because of the financial crisis and the problems with Greece turning into a global problem, the feeling is that Britain needs a stable government to calm the financial markets in the UK, else we might fall into the vortex generated by Greece's monetary problems. And remember we are not part of the Euro so we don't have the rest of Europe to bail us out, we would have to go cap in hand to the IMF.

As I understand it the sequence is;

The incumbent tries to form a coalition, Brown tried but was rebuffed by the Lib Dems, saying they could not make a deal with Labour while Brown was its leader.
The other parties; Lib Dems, Conservatives, Scottish Nationalists, Welsh Nationalists, etc, attempt to form a coalition. Currently the Conservatives and Lib Dems are negotiating.
Haggling and negotiations ensue.
If no agreement can be made, the party with the largest number of seats(MPs) tries to form a minority government.
If that fails, their will probably be another election, or the Queen might roll up her sleeves and get involved, but that is highly unlikely.

We don't have a written constitution, hence the rules are quite fluid, based initially, for guidance, on precedent.

Ferre
08-05-2010, 04:29 AM
You do have a constitution Strong, since last year every single EU member state is subject to the European constitution, which they do not name as such but which definitely is.

:3wink:

Strong
08-05-2010, 01:01 PM
:sqlaugh:

I hadn't thought of that! But that one doesn't determine elections in member states I guess.

Strong
11-05-2010, 06:31 AM
I had to post this: :sqlaugh:

Adam Boulton is the Sky News political editor, Alistair Campbell is intimately involved with both Blair's and Brown's government. This is a dust up between them during a live Sky news broadcast. Boulton completely lost it.

It takes a while to get going, 4:30 ish is where it kicks off.

1gkHwU4DRA8

I've never liked Boulton if the truth were known, too much of a suck up and he seems to have nailed his colours to the mast with this.

Muddy
11-05-2010, 11:54 AM
auVqZ8vrM34&

Ferre
11-05-2010, 04:16 PM
yGDcIABO1Ns

I guess they have formed a coalition (Conservatives/Lib-Dems) with David Cameron as the new Prime minister.

I hope the Lib Dems have made a couple of good demands because although they only have a few seats they are in the technical position of "having them by the balls" now. (and "them" are the conservatives, they cannot rule without the Lib-Dems)

Strong
11-05-2010, 04:29 PM
Yes, Gordon Brown resigned. Technically, the position is we have a Conservative minority government, with David Cameron as Prime Minister. There is no formal coalition.

The Lib Dem MPs are meeting to evaluate the current state of negotiations between them and the Conservatives. If they don't like what is on offer they can turn down the offer of a coalition. There isn't even an informal coalition at this stage.

They would be silly to turn down a slice of the power though. It'll be interesting to see how much horse trading has gone on. This hasn't happened for a generation in the UK.

Brian
11-05-2010, 04:35 PM
The Lib Dem MPs are meeting to evaluate the current state of negotiations between them and the Conservatives. If they don't like what is on offer they can turn down the offer of a coalition. There isn't even an informal coalition at this stage.


I have to say I do find it hard (as an outside observer) to see the LD's and Conservatives forming a coalition. The LD's seemed to gain a bit of momentum in this election and joining their adversaries may take the wind out of the sails.

Strong
11-05-2010, 04:47 PM
It all boils down to the number of seats in Parliament and while Clegg got a big boost after the first party leader's show, he didn't improve upon that in subsequent weeks. And at the actual election they ended up no better than they were before the election. All the hope of more seats evaporated. That is partly to do with our electoral system.

What you say about the Conservative and Lib Dems being uncomfortable bed fellows is very true. They are at odds over many issues, diametrically so in fact. For instance Britain's nuclear deterrent, Trident, the Lib Dems want to scrap it, the Conservative don't, electoral reform, the conservative definitely don't want that, they like the present system, tax is another big issue.

Frankly I don't know how they could even sit around the same table and yet here we are with them putting on their pyjamas and brushing their teeth and getting ready for bed together. I wouldn't have believed it possible if I hadn't seen it for myself. That may play out against the Lib Dems come the next general election. Trust about what people are really voting for will be an issue.

Halo
11-05-2010, 05:43 PM
I guess they have formed a coalition (Conservatives/Lib-Dems) with David Cameron as the new Prime minister.

Yup, looks like we might be CON-DEMned :sqembarrassed:

Ferre
11-05-2010, 05:54 PM
I can't resist to quote Edward Bernays, the father of crowd control (aka mass manipulation);


The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseenmechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet. They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

It's only one of the reasons I personally don't vote. :sqwink:

Ferre
11-05-2010, 06:00 PM
Btw, Dutch Newspapers just announced that Nick Clegg will be the vice premier; They also say the LD will get five kabinet posts in the new government (I guess they DID have them by the balls)

Nick Clegg vicepremier - Buitenland - Telegraaf.nl [24 uur actueel, ook mobiel] [buitenland] (http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/6704058/__Nick_Clegg_vicepremier__.html?p=3,1)

Strong
12-05-2010, 03:57 AM
Yeah, as of last night, we do have a Con - Lib Dem coalition. Nick Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister. It is reported that the Lib Dems will be given five ministerial posts, but which those will be are still just rumours.

1974 was the last time this happened in the UK, it didn't last long. UK General election February 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974). Let's hope this one is stable and offers some real changes.

I voted but it didn't make much difference.

Ferre
12-05-2010, 11:34 AM
Strong and Halo, for your information, I happen to have access to the emails send by the Lib Dems to their members, this came today and it really shows to what extent they really have the tories by the nuts;


Dear XXXXX <-- edited out for privacy reasons

Last night, Nick Clegg made the following announcement:

"We are now going to form a new government. More importantly than anything else, we are going to form a new kind of government; I hope this is the start of a new kind of politics I have always believed in. Diverse, plural, where politicians with different points of view find a way to work together to provide the good government for the sake of the whole country deserves."

"That was what we were asked to do by the people of Britain in the General Election last Thursday and that is what we will deliver."

The agreement between the two parties is full of policies that we have campaigned on for years - and now have the opportunity to put into practice.

These policies are summarized below and you can read the whole agreement document here.

Yours,

Chris Fox Signature

Chris Fox
Chief Executive, Liberal Democrats



Taking Liberal Democrat Policies into Government



The policy agreement for the new Government is full of Liberal Democrat policies. It is a real chance to put into action the ideas that we have campaigned for.


A Fair Start for Children

· Introduce a Pupil Premium to give all children a fair start.


Fairer taxes and Economic Reform

* A substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011 with a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective
* Reform of the banking system, ensuring a flow of lending to businesses and a Banking Levy. An independent commission on separating retail and investment banking.
* Capital Gains Tax reform




Fair Politics

* Fixed-term parliaments and a referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons.
* A power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing.
* A wholly or mainly elected House of Lords on the basis of proportional representation.
* Giving Parliament control of its own agenda so that all bills are properly debated.
* Enacting the Calman Commission proposals and a referendum on further Welsh devolution.
* A statutory register of lobbyists.
* A limit on political donations and reform of party funding in order to remove big money from politics.
* Radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups.


A fair and sustainable future

* Establish a smart electricity grid and the roll-out of smart meters.
* Establish feed-in tariff systems in electricity
* A huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
* The creation of a green investment bank.
* The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills.
* Retention of energy performance certificates when HIPs are scrapped.
* Measures to encourage marine energy.
* The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard.
* Establish a high-speed rail network.
* Cancel the third runway at Heathrow and refuse additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
* Replace the Air Passenger Duty with a ‘per plane’ duty.
* The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
* Make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence.
* Promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.
* Reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months.
* Increase the target for energy from renewable sources.


Pensions

* Restoration of the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%.
* Phase out the default retirement age and end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.
* Implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders.


Civil Liberties

* Scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the ContactPoint Database.
* Outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
* Extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
* Adopt the Scottish approach to stopping retention of innocent people’s DNA on the DNA database.
* Defend trial by jury.
* Restore rights to non-violent protest.
* A review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
* Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
* Further regulation of CCTV.
* Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
* A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
* End the detention of children for immigration purposes.

I really like the statement on privacy, big brother will take a huge step back. :sqbiggrin:

Ferre
12-05-2010, 11:38 AM
* A wholly or mainly elected House of Lords on the basis of proportional representation.

Welcome to the 21st century England. :clap2:

Strong
13-05-2010, 05:46 AM
You mean the UK, England is just one country within the UK. The election was for the whole of the UK. :sqwink:

As for that list, its commonly available now:

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7715166/In-full-the-Conservative-Liberal-Democrat-coalition-agreement.html)
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm)

Your list seem more concise though.

Strong
13-05-2010, 06:08 AM
BTW I don't know if an elected House of Lords will actually be a good idea. We already have an elected chamber, the Commons and the government is composed of MPs from that chamber, as it should be I think. The Lords is traditionally a revising second chamber, it is there to scrutinise and suggest changes to proposed legislation, it cannot create new legislation. I think that should remain its function. The people are represented by the Commons after all.

The composition of the members of the Lords, now that is another question entirely. The Lords is composed of the best and greatest minds in the country. They generally possess vast amounts of knowledge and experience which they can bring to the legislative process. Most of these people wouldn't dream of putting themselves up for an election. So I suspect you would lose that which makes the Lords so special.

I think it is enough to remove the hereditary peers, the lay abouts and spongers from the Lords. And perhaps balance the political representation, I think the Conservatives are over represented and the Lib Dems under represented.

I also think the religious representation by Christians is odd in this day and age. I think Bishops automatically gain a seat in the Lords. Are we going to represent the other religious groups as well; Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, spiritualists, Satanists, ... ? Where would you draw the line? I'm inclinded to say go secular and exclude them all from the political process as in France, religion shouldn't be the basis for gaining a seat in the Lords. But then you are ignoring the religious heritage that modern Britain is based on and of course its past. But I give that little weight.

That said, there are many moral dilemmas that legislatures face, but morals are not the exclusive right for the religious to pronounce upon. I'm obviously in two minds about the whole religious component of the Lords.

Ferre
13-05-2010, 11:26 AM
e thinks you need to shake off some of that conditioning brother, the "house of lords" is not a democratic institution, and despite what you believe, it does not have the "best and greatest minds in the country" in it, what it does have is a collection of religious zealots and a bunch of social elites, it is an illustration of everything that's wrong with the old class system that used to be the ruling establishment in GB.

We too have a "second chamber" system in place in the Netherlands, they are elected as it should, we are living in the 21st century and one of the main reasons why the Dutch opposed the EU constitution/treaty is the fact that this too has a bunch of institutions within which is composed of non elected (appointed) bureaucrats who have decision making powers, for us that's like going back to the frikkin dark ages.

Sure, the house of lords has a few intellectuals in there but that's more of a coincidence than anything else, most of them are appointed because of their social status, be it because of religious or other reasons, but all have the post because of their status in society, and not because of their intellectual skills.

As I said before, we are living in the 21st century now and it is long overdue to replace all the old relics of the dark ages with democratic equivalents, and the house of lords is such a relic.

I've been watching the first press conference yesterday with Nick Clegg and David Cameron and I was impressed by the way those two men showed they found mutual grounds, even their body language (which does not lie) showed two people who will stick up for each other even within their own parties and are determined to achieve the goals they have set, this was very reassuring and I liked what I heard and saw.

Of course, the future will tell whether they can achieve those goals, but I think they made an excellent start. I think this coalition is the best Britain has to offer, and I mean that in a positive way, I really believe Britain now has the best guys for the job at the helm and I think we've seen the start of a better future for everyone in Britain.

I must say I never was a fan of labour to begin with, not in my own country and anywhere else, there's too much incompetence for management in those circles in my view and a disturbing lack of vision.

Strong
13-05-2010, 12:19 PM
The House of Lords is by no means perfect, I totally agree with you in that, but voting is not the way to select the best people I think. You'll have celebrities winning over scientists every time.

I don't like the patronage option being in the hands of the Prime Minister(PM) as it is today. It has lead to much back room dealing. I would prefer a committee made up of both houses deciding/voting on who should be appointed.

There is a difference between life peers and hereditary peers in the Lords. The latter has to go, they are peers for no reason other than their ancestors did something the King approved of. Life peers are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the PM of the day, and this tool called patronage has been misused at times. Taking it out of the PM's hands is entirely appropriate I think.

I like the idea that someone who has worked hard all their life and is at the top of their profession, or has given selflessly in public service should be rewarded with some sort of recognition. And why not make use of their knowledge, talent and wisdom? Professor Ray Winston as an example for instance, a well deserved appointment in my opinion.

While there are aspect of the Lords that does need reform, we don't need to throw the bath water out, there is much that is worth saving. And remember Parliament has pretty much kept Britain free from civil war for hundreds of years. Unlike the French I would say :sqwink:

Ferre
13-05-2010, 05:49 PM
I like the idea that someone who has worked hard all their life and is at the top of their profession, or has given selflessly in public service should be rewarded with some sort of recognition. And why not make use of their knowledge, talent and wisdom? Professor Ray Winston as an example for instance, a well deserved appointment in my opinion.

We are totally on the same page there brother. :sqwink:

Strong
14-05-2010, 06:04 AM
I should add that generally the people in the Lords are at the end of their working lives. They have had their careers, been there, seen it, done it, made their money. Thus they have little to gain from the experience and much to give to society. It is a big chance for them to give something back.

That is a unique thing in modern society, where the older generation has a chance to help generations to come, by imparting their wisdom through the legislative process. I feel it is a stabilising influence on society. The young have much to offer, but so too the old. We would have better government because of it. Therefore this skewed age bias is no bad thing.

Ferre
14-05-2010, 02:58 PM
I mostly agree with you, people just need to get rid of the religious appointees in there, they have nothing to add but outdated dogma.

Halo
15-05-2010, 02:18 PM
Was watching an episode of True Blood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Blood) today (season 1, ep 11) and the character Terry Bellefleure, an Iraq war veteran says:

I can't listen to politicians no more. I get a seizure.

I can sympathise. :3confused:


HIGNFY (election edition):
8ycPmtbr2jk
nKezrPKLtCM
ZCothPEoLOg

Strong
16-05-2010, 12:43 PM
Thanks Halo, I missed the first couple of minutes when first showed. I love watching HIGNFY, Merton is just crazy at times. It was funnier when Angus Dayton was the host though.

Halo
20-05-2010, 05:04 PM
Uh oh.
New vision for the UK:
mHR6-KN-8uI

Ferre
27-08-2010, 08:32 AM
This video was recorded one day after the UK elections, I have hope for the future :sqbiggrin:

yzz3OjOO8sI

Strong
27-08-2010, 10:12 AM
They'll grow out of it :sqwink:

Ferre
27-08-2010, 11:21 AM
Strange. I never did. :sqeek:

Strong
27-08-2010, 11:35 AM
But you are mellowing :sqbiggrin:

Halo
22-12-2010, 01:24 PM
University funding cuts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/19/university-funding-cut-tuition-fees).

Charlie Brooker on the cuts: Boh (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/charlie-brooker-how-cut-tuition-fees).

Nine thousand pounds a year sounds like a lot – but actually, it's shitloads. Yet it turns out that if you divide shitloads by 52, it comes out at around £173 a week, which sounds more achievable. Especially if your course only lasts seven days. So let's only provide week-long courses.

AVIJBxZruz8
Commenter Oobervice says what I think many who voted LibDem now feel:

Don't mince words, people, the meaning is the same. He said he wouldn't and he did. Fuck me, I can't believe I voted for this cunt

IUQvcdDczPQ

Y0f7PjgF-yo..but he might have meant something like this:
964nmV65ids


It's a shame, because there could have been a real differencce this time. Instead of the constant swing from red to blue there could have been another option. It seems that Clegg has made sure that many will never trust LibDems again. What happened to PR etc?

Maybe next time I will exercise my right not to vote.:3mad:

Ferre
22-12-2010, 03:26 PM
man, I have two letters in my possession that were send out by Nick Clegg shortly after each other in which he attempts to explain to the members of his party why he betrayed them.

pretty wild stuff, I might post it here.

Ferre
22-12-2010, 03:31 PM
Here they are;


Date: 14 October 2010

Dear XXXX,


I am painfully aware of the pledge my colleagues and I made to you and to voters on tuition fees ahead of the General Election. Departing from that pledge will be one of the most difficult decisions of my political career. It means doing something that no one likes to do in politics – acknowledging that the assumptions we made at election time simply don’t work out in practice. With the benefit of hindsight, I signed a pledge at a time when we could not have anticipated the full scale of the financial situation the country faces now and the absence of plausible alternatives for students to the arrangements we are now advocating.

Our constructive and open dialogue as a party on such a difficult issue for us has only reinforced my view that, whatever our differences of opinion, Liberal Democrats are motivated by a desire to see fairness hardwired into our society. I should stress that no detailed decisions have yet been taken by the Government on how to take forward Lord Browne’s recommendations. We have broadly endorsed them but this is an enormously complex issue and we will take the time needed to get it right. In this time I want to give members the opportunity to contact me, so I have set up a new email specifically for this discussion – tuition@libdems.org.uk.

Most of you will agree that the existing system of the funding of higher education is unsustainable. This is exacerbated by the enormous deficit left to us by Labour necessitating unavoidable cuts in government support for higher education. It must also be remembered that Labour were planning to make massive cuts in the university teaching budget, having earmarked the BIS Department for 20% to 25% cuts. There is no pain free alternative. Unless the current system of Tuition Fees is changed, then either our universities would be bankrupt or far fewer of our young people would get the chance to experience tertiary education. People from my generation were lucky enough to enjoy a university education paid for by the state. In an ideal world, I would like our children and grandchildren to have the same. But we could not be further from an ideal world. We are in a disastrous financial situation that requires us to take tough decisions we would otherwise not have made.

The current system is also unfair in many ways – not least the raw deal given to part-time students and the low level (near minimum wage) at which graduates currently have to start paying back their loans. The Government will respond fully to Browne’s recommendations in due course but some specific proposals deserve highlighting. Part-time students will have their fees paid up front and will be treated for the first time like their full-time counterparts. Poorer students will pay less, while wealthier students will pay more. And a much more progressive system than the current one both makes more generous maintenance arrangements for those on low incomes and raises the threshold at which repayments start to be made.

As Vince made clear, a pure graduate tax, while superficially attractive, simply won’t work. It is not fair, nor will it reduce our colossal deficit. That is why everyone who has looked closely at it has come to the same conclusion – not least the last Labour Government in their booklet ‘What’s Wrong with a Graduate Tax’. If Ed Miliband ignores his Shadow Chancellor’s advice and continues to support a graduate tax, then we should be extremely confident that it is us who are on the right side of the argument.

I understand there will be some MPs who feel that they cannot depart from their pledge but I have urged them to only come to that final conclusion after a thorough examination of all the facts available. As a starting point, I have drawn attention to yesterday’s response from the Institute for Fiscal Studies - “the proposed reforms to repayments are highly progressive and ensure that poorest 30% of graduates are better off than under the current system, whilst ensuring that the richest 30% of graduates pay off their loans in full.”

The overriding principle for Liberal Democrats is that any system of higher education funding is fair. It should increase the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds; it should increase social mobility; it should ensure fair access for all and not put anyone off attending university; it should increase the already world-class teaching and research at our universities; and it should ensure that those who earn more pay more.

This is one of the most difficult political decisions I have ever had to make and I have struggled endlessly with it. I could not forgive myself, however, if we did not take decisions now, regardless of how difficult they are politically, that would lead to a fair and sustainable system of higher education funding for future generations.


All best wishes,


Nick Clegg
Leader of the Liberal Democrats

Followed by this one;


Date: 15 October 2010 14:45

Dear XXXXX,

Today is a defining moment for the Liberal Democrats. Today we show what can be achieved as a party in power - that we can deliver on a promise that we put on the very front page of our manifesto: giving a fair chance to every child.

The Liberal Democrat’s purpose in Government is to make Britain a better, fairer nation. And ahead of next week’s comprehensive spending review, today we set out our plans for a four-year, £7 billion investment in improving opportunities for the most disadvantaged kids in this country.

Every disadvantaged two year-old will be entitled to 15 hours free early education – in addition to the existing entitlements at the ages of three and four. Every poor school child will get additional help from a Pupil Premium paid to their school. Every young adult who wants to go to university will be able to do so, undeterred by financial barriers.

By the end of the spending review period, we will be investing £3 billion a year on this Fairness Premium – including £2.5 billion on the pupil premium alone, £300 million on the extra help for two year-olds and £150 million on the university fairness scheme. From next year, we will he helping poorer children from two to twenty: from a child’s first shoes to a young adult’s first suit.

Given that we are having to cut spending these are sizable new commitments. But even as we cut spending, we are determined to invest in fairness.

Whatever Labour say, we have no choice but to tackle the deficit. Ed Miliband thinks otherwise. He says he represents a ‘new generation’. But he seems happy to saddle the next generation with the debt that his Government racked up. I am not.

Every day we lose more in interest payments to the financial markets: the amount we pay in interest is enough to build a new primary school every hour. Let me be absolutely candid: we have a hard road to recovery ahead of us. But also let me assure you, that as Liberal Democrats we are determined to ensure that road leads to fairness, too.

For me, this is personal. A decade ago I argued in favour of a pupil premium to help children and close the educational gap. Under Labour this gap has been left to widen and for too long the achievements in life have been dictated by the circumstances of birth. I represent a constituency in Sheffield where, for all Labour’s promises, inequalities still scar the community.

All of us are having to work hard in order to make the spending review fair. We’re all having to accept difficult cuts in many areas of public spending that we would very much rather avoid. Both parties in Government are having to negotiate and compromise. We’re all having to change our positions on some issues when the arguments demand it.

But all of us in this government, including the Prime Minister and myself, are not willing to compromise on a better future for the poorest children.

None of this would have been possible without all the hard work done by members up and down the country at the last election and over the many years before that. We should all be proud that we are delivering in Government the changes for which we have campaigned for so long.

Best wishes


Nick Clegg
Leader of the Liberal Democrats

Ferre
22-12-2010, 03:33 PM
And that was followed with this one;


Date: 29 October 2010

Dear XXXXX,

Yesterday I visited Manchester and Oldham to launch the Regional Growth Fund – accompanied by our former Party President Sir Ian Wigglesworth and Michael Heseltine, who will oversee the fund. This is a fund worth £1.4bn to promote business and create jobs - and it will help bring about the fairer and more balanced economy Liberal Democrats have long been campaigning for.

It is vital that our economy moves away both from a dependence on the public sector and an over-dependence on a narrow range of sectors in the South East, such as banking. The government is committed to ensuring business opportunities are more evenly balanced across the country.

This requires a new approach, shifting power away from central government and giving it to local businesses and communities so that they can promote private sector growth and jobs in their area.

That is why in a statement in parliament yesterday Vince Cable announced that we are creating local enterprise partnerships that will bring together business and civic leaders to set the strategy and decisions that will work best for their local economy.

Our party has long believed that local government should have more powers over the money raised in their area. So we are looking to reform the planning system and put in place a series of incentives that will allow local areas to benefit from the proceeds of development. And it is why the Government’s White Paper commits us to looking at how local councils can have greater discretion over business rates.

For too long the direction of our economy has been over centralised and over reliant on the City and Whitehall. We are changing that. Liberal Democrats in government are transforming this - to a more green, more diverse and more local economy.

Best Wishes,

Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister

Ferre
22-12-2010, 03:34 PM
As you can see, a lot of empty rhetoric.

Ferre
24-12-2010, 03:01 PM
Well, fair is fair, it is not all bad; Queen Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill | Number10.gov.uk (http://www.number10.gov.uk/queens-speech/2010/05/queens-speech-freedom-great-repeal-bill-50647)

Halo
20-01-2011, 05:55 PM
Joke time.

Q. Why did Nick Clegg cross the road?
A. Because he said he wouldn't.


According to a protester's placard.
:sqrofl:

Strong
21-01-2011, 08:56 AM
Andy Coulson bites the dust - at last! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12251456)


The prime minister's communications chief Andy Coulson has resigned, blaming coverage of the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

Finally they have figured out that it isn't going away and they can't just bury it. A major scalp which makes Cameron and the Coalition look stupid, but then there have been a few things of late that point to disturbances in the force. Vince Cable, EMAs, Fees in general for university under grads, that woman yesterday that wanted to put her baby into care after talking to Cameron (:sqbiggrin:), and finally the NoW scandal is moving in the right direction.


You might have noticed that I've grown tired of the Coalition already. I should never have voted for the Lib Dems, I am ashamed. I guess a whole heap of students must feel the same way too. Broken promises/pledges, another word for Lib Dems it would seem.

Ferre
19-02-2011, 07:06 AM
Three days left; http://www.youtube.com/worldview?feature=ticker

Halo
12-08-2011, 05:17 AM
YItK1izQIwo

Keywords: Nick Clegg's back garden, David Cameron, riots, Greece, austerity measures, liblab, conservative, rioting in the streets, Tessa Jowell, hobnobbing


Not so much hobnobbing, but hobbling. :3sad:

Ferre
12-08-2011, 08:07 AM
http://i.imgur.com/W6smi.jpg

ewomack
14-08-2011, 10:23 AM
Can't we try reaping something decent for a change?:3sad:

It's interesting... here in the States everyone asks "what are Londoners rioting about anyway?" The press covered the violence of the riots but in general analyzed the reasons pretty scantily... the emphasis has been on the riots themselves and so to many here it seems like a random act of carnage...

Muddy
14-08-2011, 10:48 AM
I say old chap, can't we all just get along?

Zap
15-08-2011, 07:03 AM
It's interesting... here in the States everyone asks "what are Londoners rioting about anyway?" The press covered the violence of the riots but in general analyzed the reasons pretty scantily... the emphasis has been on the riots themselves and so to many here it seems like a random act of carnage...

Not to sound paranoid, but I suspect that is by design. I'm thinking that the media controllers know that the USA is on the list and it's only a matter of time before people there get pissed off enough to riot.
What happened in England, Greece, Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. are not isolated incidents. I believe they are connected, with the common thread being people pissed off enough at their leaders/rulers to do something active about it. I also don't think humanity is near finished yet, either. Look to Italy, Spain, Portugal and France for the next wave and the US will eventually revolt too.

Muddy
15-08-2011, 12:02 PM
France has more than once recently shown their willingness to take to the streets. Mess with their vacation time/pay and the sand starts getting kicked around. The stretch from that to rioting is hardly a quantum leap.

Halo
03-04-2012, 06:55 PM
Thought you people might appreciate this pic.
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/560367_10151461037570103_876665102_23794326_177979 0564_n.jpg

Strong
20-05-2012, 06:22 AM
'Stop moaning and work harder', says Hague (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stop-moaning-and-work-harder-says-hague-7743175.html)

It is almost like Tebbit's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tebbit) "On yer bike!" moment, although I think Hague aimed it at business leaders.


In the aftermath of the 1981 (1981 Handsworth riots and the Brixton riot), Tebbit responded to a suggestion by a Young Conservative (Iain Picton) that rioting was the natural reaction to unemployment:

I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it.

This exchange was the origin of the attribution to Tebbit of the slogan On yer bike!. Tebbit is often misquoted as saying directly to the unemployed "get on your bike and look for work" as a consequence of his speech, although this interpretation is arguably what he was implying. He was always portrayed as a sinister, leather-clad bovverboy by the satirical TV puppet show, Spitting Image.