Printable View
Interesting. If this remains the case, may be an excuse to take a break from the media dullards and go rip it up in Chicago for a few days...Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
Buddy Guy's Legends.
Plaything incoming. Catfish at the bar. Shoot some pool at the back.
Still got the blues...
Holy shit, this is as big as Thatcher's margin in early 80's
The difference is that Thatcher had a (big) majority. This time Cameron and the Conservatives won't hold an overall majority and with the Lib Dem losses, the current coalition may not hold enough seats for a majority either.Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
Current running total (after 398 out of 650 declared)
Labour 162
Conservative 156
SNP 53 (out of 57 declared)
Lib Dems 6
Last night Nicola Sturgeon was playing down the exit poll results. She must be doing the Highland Fling now. At the moment the SNP are up 48 and Labour are down 40 seats in Scotland.
Again, last night, Paddy Ashdown was so confident that the BBC exit poll was wrong and the Lib Dems would win 20-30 seats that he actually said he would eat his hat live on TV. Watch this space...
Just shows you how quickly things can change.
After 483 seats declared
Conservatives 205
Labour 195
SNP 55
Lib Dem 6
Conservatives are now predicted to have a narrow overall majority.
Will Paddy Ashdown be the first politician in history to keep a promise?...
I'm in mourning. I'm afraid our friends "North of the border" have probably let these animals into power, sorry Laphroaig!
This will be the ONLY reason Labour havn't been elected, despite Milliband not being "Leader" material, far right press havn't helped either.
Londons stockbrokers, bankers and millionaires will be partying into the small hours, as for the rest of us.......
"hold on tight"
Only good thing, Ed will be gone later today I suspect.
Looks like it's sodomy, then! :shrug
Peejay, do the maths, even if Labour had won ALL the Scottish seats they still couldn't have formed a government. It's their failings in England that have cost them.
Yes, it appears that way now. They were only 39 in front when I wrote!
I'm coming North, can't stand 5 more years of this....
Sincerely hope that none of you find need of Fire and Rescue in the coming years. There will not be many of us out there...
Kurt Vonnegut suggested that he could think of 'no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man, than a fire engine'
Cameron see's things a little differently.
It is what it is.
Buckle up.
Peejaye, you're welcome up north. But, having rejected both the Tories and Labour, unless Scotland gets the devolved powers it was promised, we could face a difficult political period here.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
The SNP may be the new 3rd force in Westminster but with a Conservative majority, they are effectively toothless.
Yes Laphroaig but Westminster may have to listen to you now. How can you be governed by London when they only have one MP in Scotland? It's mad!
I wanted independence for Scotland in the referendum because I seriously considered moving "lock, stock & barrel" up there to get away from this "far right filth" which as destroyed this once great Kingdom!
Lots of English people admire Nicola Sturgeon because of her passion for "her" people. I am one of them.
When I started this thread on the 31st of March, I wrote:
"my own worthless opinion on the evidence so far is that we will return on May 8th with the same Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition that we have had these past five years."
Although my prediction is sort of right, I clearly underestimated the extent of the losses suffered by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but it still remains my view that with a slender majority the Tories will either offer an extension of the coalition agreement with the remaining Liberal Democrats or try to seek an understanding on support for key legislation on a vote-by-vote basis. In five years MPs die, defect, are forced to resign, so that the margin of victory though sufficient to form a government is still not the most secure basis on which Cameron can be Prime Minister.
One key issue is in the slippery concept of legitimacy -given the hammering they have received, could the Liberal Democrats seriously entertain joining a coalition? Power is a drug, and they have little else to lose, and could be given junior positions in the government. Moreover, by doing this, Cameron can again kick into touch the referendum on the UK's membership of the EU as the price for forming a coalition, but would risk alienating an already unsettled anti-European bloc in his party which, with enough defections could threaten to undermine his rule. Whether or not Cameron could call on the Northern Ireland parties, the DUP in particular is obscure. Northern Ireland would want some serious cash in return.
The obvious legitimacy deficit is in Scotland where none of the English parties now have a presence of any significance outside Council seats, important as these are on a day to day basis. However, for London to lose control of a large part of the UK is not unprecedented in British politics.
In the General Election of 1918, 73 out of the 105 seats in Ireland were won by Sinn Fein, who not only refused to take their seats in the House of Commons, but established an (illegal) independent government in Dublin, deepening the crisis that had been taking place since the Easter Rising of 1916 and setting Ireland on the road to civil war. It was also the first major breakaway from the British Empire and symbolically also important as Ireland had been a possession since the 12th century. However, I do not expect a civil war to erupt north of the border!
How the new government relates to the SNP is going to be fascinating, but it is also the greatest challenge that the SNP have faced as they have to deliver something to an electorate that has been so aroused since last year's independence referendum. Issues that have been talked about include 'fiscal autonomy', ending the 'Barnett formula' -but I dont see any agreement on nuclear weapons, but we shall see.
It has been a dramatic night, the most astonishing being the loss of Ed Balls, I don't think anyone saw that coming. It is rare for three party leaders to resign on the same day, but we can say farewell to three men who, it turns out, are not considered leaders at all by the people who matter. The Labour Party is in crisis, it has never performed as badly as this since Thatcher's wipeout of 1983 but where it goes from here nobody knows. I think the time might be ripe for the dissolution of the parties and the creation of new parties which reflect the world in which we now live. I would hope that the younger generation under the age of 40 can now step up to the challenge and begin the process of change this country so badly needs. People have voted grudgingly for more of the same, because the alternative was so much more unattractive.
Nigel Farage like the Liberals of old has complained that the Scots with 1 million votes get 56 MPs and UKIP with 3 million get 1, exposing his ignorance of the country he sought to lead. A simple glance at the map of Scotland reveals that not may people live on mountains which Scotland has in abundance, and that the concentration of the population into the urban areas between Glasgow in the West and Edinburgh in the East, and in the industrial areas of Dundee, Ayr and Aberdeen is the source of all those parliamentary seats -unless someone is suggesting Scotland have constituencies with over 200,000 voters, the political geography reflects the spread of seats across Scotland, it is a geographical reality that only proportional representation can change, and we rejected that in 2011.
Needless to say my constituency is yet to declare, even though it is 1.20 in the afternoon. Apparently a goat was seen in the dawn light heading off into the bushes with a clutch of ballot papers in its jaws, followed by numerous confused constables and a photographer. Let's hope they don't need a re-count. And all this to elect a Tory!
I'll have to re-read your post a few times to fully soak in your analysis... spot on as always Stavros. One thing's for sure... no one named Ed Balls should ever leave public life.
Some interesting figures and stats:
Voter turnout remains low at 66.1% but the highest this century -the turnout was higher in Scotland @ 71%.
Transgendered candidates results:
Emily Brothers -Labour, Sutton and Cheam -came third with 11% of the vote.
Zoe O'Connell -Liberal Democrat, Maldon -came fifth with 4.5% of the vote.
Stella Gardiner -Green Party, Bexleyheath and Crayford -came fifth with 2% of the vote.
Charlie Kiss -Islington South and Finsbury -came fifth with 7.6% of the vote.
There are more non-white MPs in the House of Commons, up to 41 from 27 (Labour 23, Tories 17.
The first MP of Chinese descent, Alan Mak was elected to Havant for the Conservatives.
Other odd facts here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32651781
peejaye, and others, with what you know of American politics, would you gather that your far right filth is worse than the Republican Party in the US? As a liberal, I certainly understand your reaction to the party on the right, but the Tories have always seemed rather tame, to me, when compared to the right wing idealogues here in the US who have completely taken over the Republican Party. This new idiot Senator Tom Cotton is what I expect from the Grand Ol' Party from now until ... well, actually, I see it never changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
113 people voted for a dead guy. Where they trying to make a point or just stupid?
I'd like to think they were trying to make a point, but having seen the results of this election...Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
As Jericho says, I'd hope they did it either to make a point or out of respect for the candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
As for stupid voting, remind us again, how many Americans voted George W Bush in for a SECOND term of office?... :banghead :werd:
Google Iain Duncan Smith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odelay
I was interested in the UK elections because I've never followed a parliamentary election. It would seem the Tories are more tame than our Republicans, but given the choice, the electorate chose the right wing option for the second straight time. You can't at once be worried about the Tories dismantling your nationalized health care system and then on the other think they really are tame.
Anyhow, if I were to venture a guess..I think if we had a parliamentary system many of the more extreme Republicans would form their own party…they do not because we vote for a single executive in a separate election and dividing the vote would compromise them too much. As a result we have an agglomeration of varied interests under one tent which adds to the perception they are more extreme.
As for how the various elections were contested, I'd have to disagree with some of the comments indicating that in the U.S. we consider more superficial factors like how photogenic a candidate is. The focus on Ed Miliband's appearance, his social awkwardness, how he eats sandwiches, whether he committed fratricide, his father's disposition towards treason; well it wasn't exactly high brow. It was exactly the type of thing we'd hear in our elections and quite persistent too. I did enjoy how engaged the people seem to be in the electoral process though and hope the next five years under Cameron go well.
Well, folks here have a tendency to forget that we imported that type of sensationalist news from the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
George Bush was elected twice because he was extremely likeable...especially given the opposition. That's all it takes. The media leans left and it always will, but the folks in Bush's plane still liked him better than the folks in Gore's plane. Gore should've been able to win by a landslide, but he didn't because he sounds like a patronizing dork. He can grow a beard and wear jeans but it still looks fake. Same with Kerry...only worse. Hell, when you look at it in perspective, you can come up with all kinds of polling breakdowns, but I think the reason President Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries was because he is tremendously more likeable than her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton...no one new who the hell they were at the time, but you can imagine having a beer with them...and sometimes... that is all it takes.
Not sure if that applies in the UK though.
I thought the bacon sandwich litmus test is sort of the same thing as we have here where politicians try to avoid seeming out of touch. Can the pol eat a bacon sandwich or are they too highfalutin to eat what the working class people eat?
Mind you there might not be as much of that, but Miliband was considered a North London geek….in the same way John Kerry was considered a northeastern patrician robot. Part of the reason they may have to prove they are not out of touch is because many of their politicians, like ours, are drawn from a small pool of elite universities. And while both leaders may not have been members of a skull and bones club, David Cameron was a member of the Bullingdon club, whose members go through various initiation rituals, including a recent one of burning money in front of beggars.
Anyhow, the political literacy and level of participation seem to be much greater in the UK. A voter turnout in the mid to high 60 percent is higher than we get in U.S. national elections and people seemed generally knowledgeable about the candidate's positions. But I actually followed a few races and there was much of the same rabble-rousing, scapegoating, and attention to personal characteristics we have here. Just my take…
I didn't pay much attention to the whole "bacon sarnie saga" at the time so I never really bothered to find out what the point of it was.
What caught my attention was the use of that photo on the front page of The Sun newspaper in a last ditch effort to persuade it's readership not to vote Labour.
Ironically, at the same time the Scottish Sun was encouraging us to vote SNP. Though some have claimed that this was a cunning ploy to lock out Labour as well. If it was, then it was astonishingly successful...
Others will correct me if I'm wrong but I have the impression that the Leaders live TV debates which were introduced during the 2010 election have led to a greater focus on personality/looks/likeability than was the case in previous elections.
Mind you, if it came down to beer drinking, Farage would be PM now, he was never out of a pub during his campaign...
If there are similarities on the 'far right' in the UK and the US it is with what we would call 'White Supremacists', people whose view of society is derived from the concept of 'race' in which, quite simply, White people are demonstrably superior to all others. There may be nuances which are different, I think that much of this kind of 'far right' attitude in the UK starts out as xenophobia and morphs into pseudo-science as they try to explain or justify the belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odelay
The differences then emerge with the solutions. The 'far right' in the UK is statist, in the sense that they believe in the kind of corporatist state that one associates with Hitler and Mussolini -a strong centralised government which brings all the major forces of the state, society and the economy into one unbreakable union. I am not sure the white supremacists have the same view of the role of the state in their dreamy white land.
Although I think there are still people in the Consevative and Republican parties who believe 'white people' are superior beings -a view that can also be found in the Labour party- differences are found when you move closer to the centre. The 'right wing' or the economically 'liberal' wing of the Conservatives is similar to the Republican and TEA party in its mistrust of government, its belief in low taxation, and the belief that government should not be doing what people can do for themselves. But the Conservative party is for the most part devoted to the State, monarchy, and the Church of England, giving the UK its Christian identity and its political institutions. Margaret Thatcher thus became both the heroine of the 'libertarian' right and also their greatest disappointment, because she only went so far in detaching the state from the economy, which is also the criticism that the TEA party and theorists (now dead) like Rothbard, Hoppe and Ayn Rand had of the American system and is the source of Republican In Name Only jibe of the TEA party.
So an agreement on low taxation, minimal government, anti-welfare, and the state detached from the economy unites the two, but in the American context the dream is a revival of the America of small communities, low to zero taxation, locally raised militias rather than a 'national' army, and an almost invisible Federal government, which is how the America of George Washington and de Tocqueville is fondly 'remembered', whereas in the UK the state, the monarchy, the armed forces and the Church cannot be separated or dismantled. It is the difference between the 'One Nation' Tories like Cameron and a libertarian like defence secretary Michael Fallon, but none of these people subscribe to theories of race, they have become tolerant of women in politics and of homosexual realities -it is their view on the relationships between the state, society and the economy where they intersect with so-called 'neo-liberalism' and globalisation and many Republicans in the US.
Broncofan, the bacon sandwich episode was one of the veiled anti-Jewish jibes that came and went through the campaign. Last year or whenever it was the Daily Mail published an article in which Miliband's father was described as a Marxist who hated Britain, the subliminal message was the same that has been levelled at the Jews for centuries -they can't be trusted. And given that Benjamin Disraeli converted to Christianity at the age of 12, Miliband would have been the first Jew to become Prime Minister, even if he is an atheist and eats bacon sandwiches. Moreover, the Daily Mail in the days when it was owned by the Rothermeres, was an early enthusiast for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and has been one of the most consistently aggressive anti-Labour papers since they were able to be so. Some of these nuances might not get over the pond. As for the man, he became leader because his brother David refused to kow-tow to the Trade Unions, just as the same unions will be the key decision makers on whoever becomes leader of the party which, I assume will be decided at the Conference in September -there will be a special session before the main business of the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
As for the political literacy of the public -they might be more literate than the average voter in the US, but that's not saying much. The low turn-outs are mostly due to apathy but is something one ought to worry about. There were 70% plus in some constituencies, but there hasn't been an 80% plus turnout since 1951 -even crucial elections like 1979 and 1997 were 76% and 71% respectively.
Looks like I got it right even if the polls didn't. Look forward to more very poor people, more rich bastards, little England out of Europe and Scotland off on its own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
I think Martin48 is "spot-on" with his predictions although I still suspect Cameron will do a "U-turn" on a referendum on Europe?
Think that was just a vote winner and it worked. Millions liked what Nigel Farage said about the EU but didn't trust him with anything else much to the massive advantage to Cameron.
I think there are enough euro skeptics within the Tory party to keep Cameron "honest" on his pledge to hold an EU referendum. He has such a slim majority in Parliament that he can't afford to alienate any faction within his party.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
What could be interesting is the form the referendum takes. I can't put a link but I heard on the radio this morning that some want a condition of the referendum to be that ALL 4 countries within the UK will have to support an "out" vote, not just a simple overall UK majority.
Good point - One of the first thing Cameron has to do is pass "English MPs for English laws" Can he then get a referendum though on just England in or out of the EU 'Cos Scotland will vote in. Northern Ireland and Wales have done very well out of EU investment - but perhaps they will forget.
As usual. the election went the way it did because voters worry about the economy and the economic arguments for staying in Europe are so strong as opposed to the risks of pulling out. The out campaign will have the money backing it and the strong individuals.
What a possible place in history for Cameron - part of a small island off the coast of Europe with little influence on the world. The Empire finally dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
My understanding is that the government will need the House of Commons to pass a bill authorising it to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU. With a majority of only 12 and with the Tories still split on the issue -as is also true of the Labour party to a lesser extent but not the SNP or the Northern Ireland parties, it is a bill that could be rejected as a previous attempt was in October 2014. The dilemma is facing Cameron on the opposite side of the House. The UK is the member of the EU but Scotland wants to remain in, making the wording of the bill crucial, for example containing some sort of option for Scotland though I am not sure what that might be. The problem is that if the UK ceased to be a member of the EU so would Scotland, and the only way Scotland could re-join the EU would be if it was independent of the rest of the UK. Either way, a referendum with a 'Yes lets leave' could provoke independence in Scotland so that Cameron's attempt to maintain the Union and leave the EU -which I don't think he wants- is not possible. Just as impossible, it seems, are those reforms to the EU which Cameron thinks would make a referendum unnecessary -more flexibility on the adoption of EU regulations and directives, limits on the free movement of people through members states of the EU, etc- so that either way the choices offer an unsatisfactory outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
The other alternative, for the UK to leave the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome would also require a Commons vote, and without a referendum I think it would be considered illegitimate.
The irony is that if there was a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU, I think most people would vote to remain in. So the next two years could be absorbed with ferocious arguments which result in no change at all.
Totally agree, but then we wouldn't be a democracy if we didn't have the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
And the debates will be needed if we are to get the details the politicians are too scared to tell you before the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
I was not aware until today of the 'Luxembourg Compromise' which member states of the EU can opt out of EU policies if it damages the 'national interest' (see the second link below).
Policy proposals and actions that might be on the table next week:
1) An EU Referendum bill
2) the Draft Communications Bill (the 'Snooper's Charter') -forcing ISP to keep huge amounts of data on their customers, and to make that information available to the government and security services.
3) the Human Rights Act to be repealed, and be replaced with a new 'Bill of Rights'.
4) Boundary Commission to re-draw the electoral map of the UK and reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600.
5) Department of Energy and Climate Change -the budget will be slashed, but I could see this department being re-named with 'Climate change' being dropped, or it could be scrapped altogether and Energy merged with Transport or a new ministry merging other departments.
6) 'English votes for English laws' -should make for a lively debate!
7) Fiscal autonomy for Scotland -I think this needs an Act of Parliament, not really sure how the laws on taxation work.
All in the context of major cuts in government spending although the Conservatives also pledged an extra £8bn for the NHS.
Articles on these can be found here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10237611.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...man-rights-act
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-10235578.html
Nigel Farage is to remain as UKIP leader!!! Whoopee!! (more sarcasm )
I heard this on the radio just before I left work. Apparently his party rejected his resignation. Way to ruin my evening...Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
The only good news is that this guy might still get the chance to have his duel with Farage.
Attachment 841375
I wonder how you say "They don't like it up 'em." in Polish.
i see nothing wrong in this tory govt or their policies.
People need to man up a bit.
Then you clearly not a honest decent caring person!
If your attitude's, I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest of you!, then this government's right up your alley.
But for anyone who gives a shit, or has a social conscience, the next five years are going to be a fucking disaster! :shrug
sounds like our version of the Tea Party. They say they want smaller government because they don't need or want any entitlements. Until you point out that their elderly parents rely on Medicare and their bi-polar kids get subsidized meds via Medicaid.
Oh, they're not against that. Just welfare moms and food stamps
Which mansion (ivory tower) did you grow up in?Quote:
Originally Posted by holzz