I am taking about people switching points, and other non-violent crimes that are not against the person. It seems odd in the extreme to cite the case you did.
If the Conservatives get very close to 326 we could see alot of pork barrels for Northern Ireland (The DUP make no secret of what it takes for them to agree to deals) and DevoMax (No vote) or a currency union (Yes vote) for Scotland...
Interesting comment, but why currency union after a Yes vote? Surely that would be seen as backing down? Is it to avoid disruption/hassle in the markets?
Salmond will probably do very well if there is a YES vote at GE2015. If the Lib Dems won't do a deal to pass the Queens speech he could well have Dave over a barrel.
The reality is that "consensus politics" usually ends up as a stitch-up from the political class, whether it's the ANC in South Africa, the EU in Europe, or Wall Street giveaways in America. Politics should be about political argument and one side winning out. Messing through fence-straddling just ends up with poor inertia and mediocrity.
In the good old days there were two sides facing each other, and one won. And after a while the voters kicked them out, and another lot had a turn.
Rinse-and-repeat.
And that was OK, because 95+% of the people in 1952 voted Conservative or Labour.
But if you start to allow governments to have absolute majorities in the House of Commons with less than 30% of the vote, then I think things start to get messy.
Just to be clear. 1. .Assuming Miliband doesn't rule out coalition, it means Cameron is pledging to remain in power as a minority government if at all possible. 2. It is highly unlikely that Cameron will win a workable majority. 3. There is a faction within the parliamentary conservative party that wants of Cameron and a return full blooded Thatcherism.
Does this not add up to a conclusion that it's a choice between a majority Lab or LibLab government and a , right wing Tory minority endlessly held to ransom by the Turnip Taliban?
Just to be clear. 1. .Assuming Miliband doesn't rule out coalition, it means Cameron is pledging to remain in power as a minority government if at all possible. 2. It is highly unlikely that Cameron will win a workable majority. 3. There is a faction within the parliamentary conservative party that wants of Cameron and a return full blooded Thatcherism.
Does this not add up to a conclusion that it's a choice between a majority Lab or LibLab government and a , right wing Tory minority endlessly held to ransom by the Turnip Taliban?
CON minority won't last the Queen's speech. My ideas earlier in the thread of doing deals with Nat parties are obviously fantasy as has been pointed out by other posters and if you rule out the Lib Dems who are you left with ? Labour ? Lol... Even less likely than a deal with the Nats.
No potential rUK prime minister is going to agree to a currency union just to get into Number 10, after a YES vote.
A formal currency union is economically absurd and dangerous for the rUK. We would be liable for Scotland's banks (currently 12 times the size of Scotland's GDP) - and much else.
More importantly, it would be politically impossible to sell a union. Most MPs wouldn't want it, and of course polls show that the pubic hates the idea. And this aspiring, double-dealing PM would soon be facing those voters, again - as the independence deal is done, and rUK inevitably has another General Election as the Scots MPs leave SW1.
"Vote for me, I was so desperate to get into Number 10, I broke my solemn promise, and jeopardised the British economy, just so I could have about six months in power".
Yeah, right.
None of the Scottish banks would be Scottish post-independence.
RBS would remain British (with a smallish Scottish subsidiary) Clydesdale is already owned by National Australia Bank Halifax BOS would remain British
I suspect Standard Life would choose to become a British company too.
What about "Scottish Widows"? Really the whole argument is absurd. Plenty of countries have become independent in history, either by rebellion or by vote. All these countries, except perhaps somalia- a special case, have found it relitinely easy, after early years of frugality, to build a thriving nation.
And I disagree mightily with you, SeanT, regarding potential PMs not jeopodising British interests for 6 months in No 10. There are quite a few whowould do just that.
Curious position for the Tories to take. Essentially disses their record 2010-15 by saying coalitions are rubbish.
This is going to be a great election: Con: We were rubbish. Lib: We were useless. Lab: Come on guys, some of your policies were pretty good - we intend to carry on with most of them...
What about "Scottish Widows"? Really the whole argument is absurd. Plenty of countries have become independent in history, either by rebellion or by vote. All these countries, except perhaps somalia- a special case, have found it relitinely easy, after early years of frugality, to build a thriving nation.
The argument is not whether a thriving nation can be built, but whether a nation could sustain an industry 12 times GDP regulated abroad and using a currency they can't print.
A future sustainable Scotland would not have anything like the financial service industry it has today. To claim otherwise is absurd.
Shadsy knows how to price up a politics market, and I seem to recall that your own occasional efforts have been pretty shrewd!
The trouble is that the volumes simply aren't great enough to interest the firms except on the major events. Hills are fairly adventurous but they get it woefully wrong at times. (Let's not discourage them.)
I expect the Referendum markets will liven up shortly. Then it's a case of just be patient and wait for 2015.
The Tories need to get Lib Dem 2010 voters to not vote labour , so saying they will not go into coalition with the Lib Dems may mean the lefty lib dem voters stick with the Lib Dems - Good Strategy by the Tories
Curious position for the Tories to take. Essentially disses their record 2010-15 by saying coalitions are rubbish.
This is going to be a great election: Con: We were rubbish. Lib: We were useless. Lab: Come on guys, some of your policies were pretty good - we intend to carry on with most of them...
If the Lib Dems and the Tories are unbelievable on this. They should be building each other up rather than tearing strips off one another. Utterly bizarre.
“He’s very clear, he doesn’t want another Coalition,” a source close to Mr Cameron has told The Telegraph."
Well, that's hardly a surprise.
“A promise in the manifesto not to do any deals after the election would make that very clear to voters and ensure they know exactly what the choice is at the election.”
The funniest outcome for 2015 would be something like CON 322 + UKIP 5.
Comments
I am taking about people switching points, and other non-violent crimes that are not against the person. It seems odd in the extreme to cite the case you did.
Rinse-and-repeat.
And that was OK, because 95+% of the people in 1952 voted Conservative or Labour.
But if you start to allow governments to have absolute majorities in the House of Commons with less than 30% of the vote, then I think things start to get messy.
1. .Assuming Miliband doesn't rule out coalition, it means Cameron is pledging to remain in power as a minority government if at all possible.
2. It is highly unlikely that Cameron will win a workable majority.
3. There is a faction within the parliamentary conservative party that wants of Cameron and a return full blooded Thatcherism.
Does this not add up to a conclusion that it's a choice between a majority Lab or LibLab government and a , right wing Tory minority endlessly held to ransom by the Turnip Taliban?
Curious position for the Tories to take. Essentially disses their record 2010-15 by saying coalitions are rubbish.
And I disagree mightily with you, SeanT, regarding potential PMs not jeopodising British interests for 6 months in No 10. There are quite a few whowould do just that.
Con: We were rubbish.
Lib: We were useless.
Lab: Come on guys, some of your policies were pretty good - we intend to carry on with most of them...
A future sustainable Scotland would not have anything like the financial service industry it has today. To claim otherwise is absurd.
We need to stop looking like ponces looking after our mates says Grant Michael. So let's have a longer name as a statement of intent.
The Conservatives are the BLANK OR BLANKS Workers Party.
Winner of the best slogan wins a Blankety Blank cheque book and pen
Shadsy knows how to price up a politics market, and I seem to recall that your own occasional efforts have been pretty shrewd!
The trouble is that the volumes simply aren't great enough to interest the firms except on the major events. Hills are fairly adventurous but they get it woefully wrong at times. (Let's not discourage them.)
I expect the Referendum markets will liven up shortly. Then it's a case of just be patient and wait for 2015.
Well, that's hardly a surprise.
“A promise in the manifesto not to do any deals after the election would make that very clear to voters and ensure they know exactly what the choice is at the election.”
The funniest outcome for 2015 would be something like CON 322 + UKIP 5.
"So Dave, Deal or no deal?"
Then the tories scream;
"Deal, Dave, or no Dave"