Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
Whilst lots of MPs weren't there. Andrew Rawnsley put it well. Tories are always moaning about Bercow being biased. Ask them for examples and they suddenly go quiet. Cameron is a narrow minded bully who doesn't being stood up to. Like many PMs before him I'm sure he'd prefer a patsy as Speaker.
So you'd be OK with Cameron's majority installing on a three line whip a pro-Tory biased speaker that nobody on the opposition benches respected? If they can get 51% to achieve that you think it's acceptable?
Either you have the confidence of the whole House or you don't.
What the SNP really wants is Mr Cameron back in Number 10
'The only goal that matters to the SNP is independence – and that means assembling a narrative of a Scotland suing for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable political differences. Without a villain, Ms Sturgeon will not have much of a pantomime; so she needs Cameron, the Old Etonian with a Brasenose First, as prime minister. Ideally in coalition with Nigel Farage. And most of all, she wants his in-or-out referendum on the European Union. If England votes to leave and Scotland to stay, it would induce the constitutional crisis that the SNP needs. This is the new road map to independence.
But for now, the SNP needs to win as many seats as possible – which means publicly entertaining the idea of coalition with Ed Miliband. Polls show that such an alliance would be the most popular election result in Scotland – which is precisely why, in the end, Ms Sturgeon can’t allow it to happen.'
You appear to be incapable of remembering what I said just earlier today multiple times that I don't like FPTP and that your opinion on the legitimacy of a party getting a majority on less than 50% seems sound, and incapable of understanding the point I have made repeatedly about that being reasonable.
Excuse me for throwing this fact in, but the SNP won 95% of the Scottish seats at Westminster, on 49.97% of the vote.
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
If Labour elect Chukka (which lets be honest, they probably will) I reckon that it'll spell disaster for them as he is so, so far removed from Labours traditional mining vote. I reckon that it'll break the WWC tribal vote.
It's breaking already. Con HOLD Sherwood is all the evidence you need of that.
Interesting appointment of Gove at Justice - will he be in charge of the EU referendum and a possible enquiry into "Rotherham" type problems being ignored by the justice system?
Whats this? More polls. It seems that OGH cannot get enough of them. I bet he goes to bed mumbling "must have polls.........". The drug that won't be appeased.
However, don't tell me that polls can be believed.
"I'm an Opinion Polling addict, and, and I've been fighting to get off polling data - shut up TSE - and, um, since last August. I've been in rehab twice, and I don't wanna be like people like OGH, that were... and stuff like that. I wanna be a survivor.
I mean I died again on Election night. So, I'm not...I'm not...my cats' lives are out. I...I just wanna say sorry to all the fans and stuff, and uh, I'm glad to be alive, and sorry to me mum as well.
I just want them to know that it's not cool. It's not a cool thing to be an addict. It's not...you know, you're a slave to it, and it took...it's taken everything away from me that I loved, and so I've got to rebuild my life."
The Apocalypse John Mann basically wants Labour to become UKIP lite, that is not the way forward for Labour and will not win it an election. The white working class is shrinking and Labour did worse in working class marginals than the suburbs on Thursday. Its best strategy is to win back suburban middle class voters who voted for Blair and switched to Cameron and add them to the public sector, ethnic voters it already has, Umunna is quite capable of building such a coalition as Obama did
Eric Joyce could have been a good choice too, I suppose, at one time.
I read something by him a week or so ago, and found myself in agreement, shame he has so many problems.
Labour used to have a menagerie of big beasts: Cunningham, Mowlam, Reid, Cook, Straw, Blunkett, Dobson, Darling, Mandelson, Clarke, as well as Blair and Brown. Smith before them. The contemporary party looks threadbare in comparison.
Jon Cruddas is far and away the best man for the job of Labour leader. Understands traditional labour people, good on TV, easy manner, down to earth, intelligent and prepared to think outside of the confines of loony left dogma.
Blue Labour will win back the support they lost in my opinion
Have to admit, I have a vision of a manic figure silhouetted atop a hill throwing sheaves of printouts into the howling gale, while gyrating in the rainstorm.
Mrs Bercow has been having an affair with his Cousin
Eww. Convenient timing though, almost as if it was designed to weaken the chances of his re-election . Someone had this saved up.
If your spouse does play away from home, why should that detract from your own professional position? It's commonplace for those who play away from home themselves to feel no professional penalty.
I thought that it was John playing away, not Sally. Poor guy.
Who would Bercow be playing away with? An oompah-loompah?
In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.
People keep repeating this to give the 37% Government some legitimacy. I don't think it is remotely true. Kippers took as many (if not more) from Labour as from Tory and I don't think there were any significant number of Kippers voting for UKIP to get continued Austerity.
It's a completely bogus argument.
If we had PR, the Conservatives would have about 240 seats, and UKIP about 90. That's a right wing majority.
PR shifts the vote, depending on the system. The idea of 240 Tory seats or anything CLOSE to that is risible under PR. Even under AMS.
So too is the idea of ~ 200 Labour MPs though, Greens would be higher at their expense. So would UKIP probably !
Die Grune have been a regular presence in German governments over the years but it hasn't harmed the economy. Having a strong Green presence tends towards smart government. They aren't morons much as they are portrayed as such in the UK.
The best thing about coalition PR governments is they form a consensus as opposed to adversarial system. The core problem with UK politics is that Labour and the Tories despise each other and make up ever more ridiculous reasons why certain policies of the other side are ridiculous (which rub off on society).
Consensus politics results in less change, less swing, a more stable system and a lot of different voices being found in government. It's by far the best system and FTPT has failed on every measure except ONE - it keeps the Tories and Labour in power no matter how damaging that is to the UK.
Just been watching the VE concert in Horseguards - convincing evidence that Britain is a conservative country. However my head says why would the grandson of the Air Minister who won the war lose his seat in the House of Commons to someone who is in a party that supported the Nazis in World War ?
The Apocalypse John Mann basically wants Labour to become UKIP lite, that is not the way forward for Labour and will not win it an election. The white working class is shrinking and Labour did worse in working class marginals than the suburbs on Thursday. Its best strategy is to win back suburban middle class voters who voted for Blair and switched to Cameron and add them to the public sector, ethnic voters it already has, Umunna is quite capable of building such a coalition as Obama did
Any idea how genuinely racist it is to compare Umunna to Obama? No offence to you, I am sure you are in no way racist, but apart from being of mixed race origin, what else connects the two?
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
Dair Utter rubbish, Miliband wanted to restore the 50% top tax rate and impose a Mansion Tax and refused to apologise for Labour's spending record, the idea he was not offering social democracy is completely false
If Labour elect Chukka (which lets be honest, they probably will) I reckon that it'll spell disaster for them as he is so, so far removed from Labours traditional mining vote. I reckon that it'll break the WWC tribal vote.
It's breaking already. Con HOLD Sherwood is all the evidence you need of that.
It's wounded, but not irreversibly (yet...). However Labour's pressing problem is that they have two types of constituencies: WWC, small-c miner seats and trendy, urban, middle class, metropolitan seats. In the long term these two opposing groupings can't survive together. I can't help but think that it'd be good for Labour to split off into the two parties above, before UKIP does it for them.
If Labour elect Chukka (which lets be honest, they probably will) I reckon that it'll spell disaster for them as he is so, so far removed from Labours traditional mining vote. I reckon that it'll break the WWC tribal vote.
If Labour elect Chuka, there's a pretty good chance of UKIP being the opposition to the Tories after the 2020 election.
Many of the people complaining about the legitimacy of this government now, were perfectly happy with Labour governing with a majority on the same or less of the vote. Ergo, they cannot complain now if they didn't complain then. You, on the other hand, can as you are objecting to the principle of it no matter who it benefits (in this case the Tories). I am not questioning the 'legitimacy' of the government myself because the people voted democratically to retain the voting system which permits such results, even though I don't agree with that system myself
Then let me makee MYSELF clearer.
The Labour Government of Tony Blai in 2005 was ILLEGITIMATE. I'm no hypocrite because I believe the system should force a government to be approaching of not over 50% of the vote if it wasn't a majority.
The only legitimate UK government since the 1960s was the current coalition.
I was just checking the results of some of our longest standing MPs, and I see Father of the House Sir Gerald Kaufman's closest rival (if there can be such a thing when you have a majority of 24000) was actually a Green.
On the subject of Labour leaders - Dennis Skinner? Come on, that'd be something to see.
Many of the people complaining about the legitimacy of this government now, were perfectly happy with Labour governing with a majority on the same or less of the vote. Ergo, they cannot complain now if they didn't complain then. You, on the other hand, can as you are objecting to the principle of it no matter who it benefits (in this case the Tories). I am not questioning the 'legitimacy' of the government myself because the people voted democratically to retain the voting system which permits such results, even though I don't agree with that system myself
Then let me makee MYSELF clearer.
The Labour Government of Tony Blai in 2005 was ILLEGITIMATE. I'm no hypocrite because I believe the system should force a government to be approaching of not over 50% of the vote if it wasn't a majority.
The only legitimate UK government since the 1960s was the current coalition.
Just been watching the VE concert in Horseguards - convincing evidence that Britain is a conservative country. However my head says why would the grandson of the Air Minister who won the war lose his seat in the House of Commons to someone who is in a party that supported the Nazis in World War ?
Interesting appointment of Gove at Justice - will he be in charge of the EU referendum and a possible enquiry into "Rotherham" type problems being ignored by the justice system?
Just been watching the VE concert in Horseguards - convincing evidence that Britain is a conservative country. However my head says why would the grandson of the Air Minister who won the war lose his seat in the House of Commons to someone who is in a party that supported the Nazis in World War ?
Not sure that Britain is a conservative country. Those VE day crowds and returning servicemen voted overwhelmingly Labour the very same summer.
I load up the thread to read and it takes a while with the number of pages. Start going through the posts and around every 10 minutes I get sporting index site appearing on the same tab. I then have to load up all the thread again for the same thing to happen minutes later. I don't touch anything it just changes
Why is this happening. It's hard enough to read site off an iPad anyway without this as well?????
Eric Joyce could have been a good choice too, I suppose, at one time.
I read something by him a week or so ago, and found myself in agreement, shame he has so many problems.
Labour used to have a menagerie of big beasts: Cunningham, Mowlam, Reid, Cook, Straw, Blunkett, Dobson, Darling, Mandelson, Clarke, as well as Blair and Brown. Smith before them. The contemporary party looks threadbare in comparison.
I agree, and it looks like Labour will have to wait a while before a large intakes comes in to replace the current lot.
Dair At Holyrood it will be SNP v Tory v Labour v LD, Tory voters are far more likely to vote tactically Labour and LD at Holyrood where the contest is Labour v SNP than at Westminster where the contest is Labour v Tory
Many of the people complaining about the legitimacy of this government now, were perfectly happy with Labour governing with a majority on the same or less of the vote. Ergo, they cannot complain now if they didn't complain then. You, on the other hand, can as you are objecting to the principle of it no matter who it benefits (in this case the Tories). I am not questioning the 'legitimacy' of the government myself because the people voted democratically to retain the voting system which permits such results, even though I don't agree with that system myself
Then let me makee MYSELF clearer.
The Labour Government of Tony Blai in 2005 was ILLEGITIMATE. I'm no hypocrite because I believe the system should force a government to be approaching of not over 50% of the vote if it wasn't a majority.
The only legitimate UK government since the 1960s was the current coalition.
Oh for f***s sake you are impossible - I just said you were no hypocrite because you are making a principled stand!!! But you kept criticising me for calling those people not making a principled stand hypocrites as if you thought I was saying you are one of them.
I am honestly baffled how you are capable of responding to posts when you don't seem able to read! I've been trying to praise your f***ing stance on this but you won't accept the praise!! And turning me into a hysteric in the process; I don't know if I've sworn once in 6000 f***ing posts.
If Labour elect Chukka (which lets be honest, they probably will) I reckon that it'll spell disaster for them as he is so, so far removed from Labours traditional mining vote. I reckon that it'll break the WWC tribal vote.
It's breaking already. Con HOLD Sherwood is all the evidence you need of that.
It's wounded, but not irreversibly (yet...). However Labour's pressing problem is that they have two types of constituencies: WWC, small-c miner seats and trendy, urban, middle class, metropolitan seats. In the long term these two opposing groupings can't survive together. I can't help but think that it'd be good for Labour to split off into the two parties above, before UKIP does it for them.
I've been saying for months that Labour have lost the WWC and they ain't ever going back.
Whats this? More polls. It seems that OGH cannot get enough of them. I bet he goes to bed mumbling "must have polls.........". The drug that won't be appeased.
However, don't tell me that polls can be believed.
"I'm an Opinion Polling addict, and, and I've been fighting to get off polling data - shut up TSE - and, um, since last August. I've been in rehab twice, and I don't wanna be like people like OGH, that were... and stuff like that. I wanna be a survivor.
I mean I died again on Election night. So, I'm not...I'm not...my cats' lives are out. I...I just wanna say sorry to all the fans and stuff, and uh, I'm glad to be alive, and sorry to me mum as well.
I just want them to know that it's not cool. It's not a cool thing to be an addict. It's not...you know, you're a slave to it, and it took...it's taken everything away from me that I loved, and so I've got to rebuild my life."
Jon Cruddas is far and away the best man for the job of Labour leader. Understands traditional labour people, good on TV, easy manner, down to earth, intelligent and prepared to think outside of the confines of loony left dogma.
Blue Labour will win back the support they lost in my opinion
Can anyone ANYONE see Hunt as leader of the labour party??
Lammy, Chuka, Jarvis, Kendall, Burnham would ALL be better than Hunt. He'd be a bigger disaster than Miliband. Start covering the CON 400+ bands imo if it happens.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament.
Bercow spends too much of his time standing up to Parliament in the name of Bercow.
Ousting the Chief Clerk was petty vandalism. He is a disgrace to the office.
He has been a disgrace to the office ever since he published his manifesto when standing for it (which by the way proposed restructuring it to allow access to, ahem, 'voluntary organisations, ahem.) He is such a showman. I mean who wants a showman as the chairperson of a serious assembly?
I load up the thread to read and it takes a while with the number of pages. Start going through the posts and around every 10 minutes I get sporting index site appearing on the same tab. I then have to load up all the thread again for the same thing to happen minutes later. I don't touch anything it just changes
Why is this happening. It's hard enough to read site off an iPad anyway without this as well?????
If you click on your own avatar then on discussions it is possible to read on Vanilla.
The Apocalypse John Mann basically wants Labour to become UKIP lite, that is not the way forward for Labour and will not win it an election. The white working class is shrinking and Labour did worse in working class marginals than the suburbs on Thursday. Its best strategy is to win back suburban middle class voters who voted for Blair and switched to Cameron and add them to the public sector, ethnic voters it already has, Umunna is quite capable of building such a coalition as Obama did
Any idea how genuinely racist it is to compare Umunna to Obama? No offence to you, I am sure you are in no way racist, but apart from being of mixed race origin, what else connects the two?
Their vanity, haughty manner and fundamental vacuousness?
If Labour elect Chukka (which lets be honest, they probably will) I reckon that it'll spell disaster for them as he is so, so far removed from Labours traditional mining vote. I reckon that it'll break the WWC tribal vote.
It's breaking already. Con HOLD Sherwood is all the evidence you need of that.
It's wounded, but not irreversibly (yet...). However Labour's pressing problem is that they have two types of constituencies: WWC, small-c miner seats and trendy, urban, middle class, metropolitan seats. In the long term these two opposing groupings can't survive together. I can't help but think that it'd be good for Labour to split off into the two parties above, before UKIP does it for them.
I've been saying for months that Labour have lost the WWC and they ain't ever going back.
To be honest I just wrote that Cruddas could win them back, but I am one of those people and I can't see myself going back
Think how fun the SLAB struggles will be for List Seats in 2016 compared to this. At least Labour UK are pretty much guaranteed 200 seats. Imagine how bad SLAB will be fighting over 15 seats in 2016.
Many of the people complaining about the legitimacy of this government now, were perfectly happy with Labour governing with a majority on the same or less of the vote. Ergo, they cannot complain now if they didn't complain then. You, on the other hand, can as you are objecting to the principle of it no matter who it benefits (in this case the Tories). I am not questioning the 'legitimacy' of the government myself because the people voted democratically to retain the voting system which permits such results, even though I don't agree with that system myself
Then let me makee MYSELF clearer.
The Labour Government of Tony Blai in 2005 was ILLEGITIMATE. I'm no hypocrite because I believe the system should force a government to be approaching of not over 50% of the vote if it wasn't a majority.
The only legitimate UK government since the 1960s was the current coalition.
Oh for f***s sake you are impossible - I just said you were no hypocrite because you are making a principled stand!!! But you kept criticising me for calling those people not making a principled stand hypocrites as if you thought I was saying you are one of them.
I am honestly baffled how you are capable of responding to posts when you don't seem able to read! I've been trying to praise your f***ing stance on this but you won't accept the praise!! And turning me into a hysteric in the process; I don't know if I've sworn once in 6000 f***ing posts.
Having not yet recovered from the Thursday night mauling , I wanted to check out my model against the real votes using UNS separately for England, Wales and Scotland.
These are the figures.
Con 319 Lab 243 SNP 55 LD 10 PC 3 GRN 1 SPK 1 NI 18
Total 650
If I had used a separate UNS for London, it might have given even better results. Using the England swings , it gives Labour 42. I don't know what the final score was but it was probably more than that. Labour failed to win Hendon, but won Ilford North. Brentford & Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central & Acton.
This only goes to show how poorly Labour did in the whole of Middle Britain including South Yorkshire.
I am leaving out Scotland, as it was well known before the Elections.
He completely scuppered the EAW vote by announcing it wasn't a vote before the Home Secretary explained it.
EDIT: Actually, he only tried to scupper it. It went through despite his best efforts. He gave it a good shot though.
There was no vote tabled by the government on the European Arrest Warrant. There was a vote on an unrelated Statutory Instrument which had nothing to do with the European Arrest Warrant. For the Speaker to point that out does not make him biased.
Interesting appointment of Gove at Justice - will he be in charge of the EU referendum and a possible enquiry into "Rotherham" type problems being ignored by the justice system?
Or the VIP child rape enquiry he thinks isn't needed.
If Labour elect Chukka (which lets be honest, they probably will) I reckon that it'll spell disaster for them as he is so, so far removed from Labours traditional mining vote. I reckon that it'll break the WWC tribal vote.
It's breaking already. Con HOLD Sherwood is all the evidence you need of that.
It's wounded, but not irreversibly (yet...). However Labour's pressing problem is that they have two types of constituencies: WWC, small-c miner seats and trendy, urban, middle class, metropolitan seats. In the long term these two opposing groupings can't survive together. I can't help but think that it'd be good for Labour to split off into the two parties above, before UKIP does it for them.
I've been saying for months that Labour have lost the WWC and they ain't ever going back.
They haven't lost most of it (yet), and the bits that they have lost aren't all gone permanently (yet). Once Chukka is elected they will have done. A (relatively) working class Tory leader, UKIP (mainly) and a socialist splinter of Labour would probably go on to eliminate them in WWC constituencies.
In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.
People keep repeating this to give the 37% Government some legitimacy. I don't think it is remotely true. Kippers took as many (if not more) from Labour as from Tory and I don't think there were any significant number of Kippers voting for UKIP to get continued Austerity.
It's a completely bogus argument.
If we had PR, the Conservatives would have about 240 seats, and UKIP about 90. That's a right wing majority.
PR shifts the vote, depending on the system. The idea of 240 Tory seats or anything CLOSE to that is risible under PR. Even under AMS.
So too is the idea of ~ 200 Labour MPs though, Greens would be higher at their expense. So would UKIP probably !
Die Grune have been a regular presence in German governments over the years but it hasn't harmed the economy. Having a strong Green presence tends towards smart government. They aren't morons much as they are portrayed as such in the UK.
The best thing about coalition PR governments is they form a consensus as opposed to adversarial system. The core problem with UK politics is that Labour and the Tories despise each other and make up ever more ridiculous reasons why certain policies of the other side are ridiculous (which rub off on society).
Consensus politics results in less change, less swing, a more stable system and a lot of different voices being found in government. It's by far the best system and FTPT has failed on every measure except ONE - it keeps the Tories and Labour in power no matter how damaging that is to the UK.
Perhaps you would care to reflect on the Italian experience post WW2 and perhaps that of Israel. PR is not of itself a guarantor of anything good in the governement line.
Many of the people complaining about the legitimacy of this government now, were perfectly happy with Labour governing with a majority on the same or less of the vote. Ergo, they cannot complain now if they didn't complain then. You, on the other hand, can as you are objecting to the principle of it no matter who it benefits (in this case the Tories). I am not questioning the 'legitimacy' of the government myself because the people voted democratically to retain the voting system which permits such results, even though I don't agree with that system myself
Then let me makee MYSELF clearer.
The Labour Government of Tony Blai in 2005 was ILLEGITIMATE. I'm no hypocrite because I believe the system should force a government to be approaching of not over 50% of the vote if it wasn't a majority.
The only legitimate UK government since the 1960s was the current coalition.
Oh for f***s sake you are impossible - I just said you were no hypocrite because you are making a principled stand!!! But you kept criticising me for calling those people not making a principled stand hypocrites as if you thought I was saying you are one of them.
I am honestly baffled how you are capable of responding to posts when you don't seem able to read! I've been trying to praise your f***ing stance on this but you won't accept the praise!! And turning me into a hysteric in the process; I don't know if I've sworn once in 6000 f***ing posts.
I find this quite amusing because of your avatar
The irony is not lost on me.
Lesson learned tonight - some people will insist upon being offended even after you make clear you are criticising people falsely claiming the principled stance that they hold, not the stance they are holding itself. A depressing lesson to learn - you cannot even agree with people but make a qualifying comment without the risk they will see attacks everywhere, a sad commentary on internet paranoia.
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
No, the Opposition are supposed to stand up to the government. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral.
HYUFD, White voters are 88% of the total. 70% of those are working class, making 62% of voters White working class. This section of the electorate is essential for victory.
Dair Utter rubbish, Miliband wanted to restore the 50% top tax rate and impose a Mansion Tax and refused to apologise for Labour's spending record, the idea he was not offering social democracy is completely false
The 50% tax rate Labour had for 30 days after 13 years of 40% ?
But that's actually an irrelevance. Miliband was portrayed as Red Ed, he never was, he refuses to countenance a budget which is balanced based on tax take. He wanted cuts. The second they went in his manifesto, he lost.
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
No, the Opposition are supposed to stand up to the government. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral.
Not when the government tries to railroad the Commons he isn't.
Think how fun the SLAB struggles will be for List Seats in 2016 compared to this. At least Labour UK are pretty much guaranteed 200 seats. Imagine how bad SLAB will be fighting over 15 seats in 2016.
Get out the ginger and munchies.
Pro rata by population, 200 x 8.5 per cent is about 17 seats, to be fair - but were those candidacies not deliberately selected before indyref, precisely to encourage SLAB MPs to extract digit and keep it extracted? (Maybe constituencies only.) If so then Mr Murphy et al will have to directly displace people either in constituencies or lists. Not so much musical chairs as wrestling matches.
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
No, the Opposition are supposed to stand up to the government. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral.
We have a very good Speaker. If he is removed by the majority party which has a 12 seat majority - then that is fine.
Having not yet recovered from the Thursday night mauling , I wanted to check out my model against the real votes using UNS separately for England, Wales and Scotland.
These are the figures.
Con 319 Lab 243 SNP 55 LD 10 PC 3 GRN 1 SPK 1 NI 18
Total 650
If I had used a separate UNS for London, it might have given even better results. Using the England swings , it gives Labour 42. I don't know what the final score was but it was probably more than that. Labour failed to win Hendon, but won Ilford North. Brentford & Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central & Acton.
This only goes to show how poorly Labour did in the whole of Middle Britain including South Yorkshire.
I am leaving out Scotland, as it was well known before the Elections.
Dair At Holyrood it will be SNP v Tory v Labour v LD, Tory voters are far more likely to vote tactically Labour and LD at Holyrood where the contest is Labour v SNP than at Westminster where the contest is Labour v Tory
LIb Dems are extinct. They should be struck off as a major party before the 2016 election so the debates aren't devalued by a spare prick at an orgy as Willie Rennie was in every debate for 2015.
Many of the people complaining about the legitimacy of this government now, were perfectly happy with Labour governing with a majority on the same or less of the vote. Ergo, they cannot complain now if they didn't complain then. You, on the other hand, can as you are objecting to the principle of it no matter who it benefits (in this case the Tories). I am not questioning the 'legitimacy' of the government myself because the people voted democratically to retain the voting system which permits such results, even though I don't agree with that system myself
Then let me makee MYSELF clearer.
The Labour Government of Tony Blai in 2005 was ILLEGITIMATE. I'm no hypocrite because I believe the system should force a government to be approaching of not over 50% of the vote if it wasn't a majority.
The only legitimate UK government since the 1960s was the current coalition.
Oh for f***s sake you are impossible - I just said you were no hypocrite because you are making a principled stand!!! But you kept criticising me for calling those people not making a principled stand hypocrites as if you thought I was saying you are one of them.
I am honestly baffled how you are capable of responding to posts when you don't seem able to read! I've been trying to praise your f***ing stance on this but you won't accept the praise!! And turning me into a hysteric in the process; I don't know if I've sworn once in 6000 f***ing posts.
My apoligies, I misread what you wrote. I see now you were commenting on Labourites and not accusing me of being one. It was quite easy to miss on first reading and the speed of posts on the board makes it hard to keep up.
Suggestion for this site: how about a regular page saying which political betting markets have the most liquidity and the biggest amounts staked at a given time? Maybe the top 10? It makes sense on a betting site for people to be encouraged to discuss those markets most.
I say this full of bitter regret that I didn't put a lot more on a Tory majority on Thursday, and eager to put more money where my mouth and brain are next time.
Interesting appointment of Gove at Justice - will he be in charge of the EU referendum and a possible enquiry into "Rotherham" type problems being ignored by the justice system?
I do hope Gove isn't being put in to cover up the paedophile rings at Westminster. It was disgraceful how the Coalition parties refused to protect whistle blowers on child abuse from prosecution under the state secrets act.
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
No, the Opposition are supposed to stand up to the government. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral.
We have a very good Speaker. If he is removed by the majority party which has a 12 seat majority - then that is fine.
It will set a precedent !
The precedent of a party electing a speaker to their taste was set with Speaker Martin. The days when the HoC elected the person they thought best for the job without regard to party loyalties and party politics have long gone.
Just a thought: a lot of people here have talked about the Union influence on Labour's vote - I can't honestly see the likes of Len McCluskey backing Umunna. I also don't see Umunna's base in the parliamentary party, either.
Interesting appointment of Gove at Justice - will he be in charge of the EU referendum and a possible enquiry into "Rotherham" type problems being ignored by the justice system?
Or the VIP child rape enquiry he thinks isn't needed.
You and Sandpit are confused. we have something called The Home Office.
Having not yet recovered from the Thursday night mauling , I wanted to check out my model against the real votes using UNS separately for England, Wales and Scotland.
These are the figures.
Con 319 Lab 243 SNP 55 LD 10 PC 3 GRN 1 SPK 1 NI 18
Total 650
If I had used a separate UNS for London, it might have given even better results. Using the England swings , it gives Labour 42. I don't know what the final score was but it was probably more than that. Labour failed to win Hendon, but won Ilford North. Brentford & Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central & Acton.
This only goes to show how poorly Labour did in the whole of Middle Britain including South Yorkshire.
I am leaving out Scotland, as it was well known before the Elections.
Your "model" was posted before the election right?
Because it sounds like you are making it up. Anyone not including Galloway in Bradford West is probably making it up in an "after the even this is what I thought" post.
This is the English boundary commission; there are similar ones for Wales, Scotland and NI.
On current legislation it will be working off the electoral registers as at December 2015 (ie independent registration in full) with a final report in 2018.
Just a thought: a lot of people here have talked about the Union influence on Labour's vote - I can't honestly see the likes of Len McCluskey backing Umunna. I also don't see Umunna's base in the parliamentary party, either.
His base is quite simply: London. Since apparently most of Labour's active members are in London he'll easily win the membership vote (depending on no. of union votes).
(I heard that MPs nominated before members decide)
TheApocalypse Labour now elects its leaders by OMOV so McCluskey no longer has his block vote, Umunna will have a solid block with MPs but will win the leadership with London Labour members and some in the suburbs, London has more Labour Party members than any other region by quite some distance
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
No, the Opposition are supposed to stand up to the government. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral.
We have a very good Speaker. If he is removed by the majority party which has a 12 seat majority - then that is fine.
It will set a precedent !
The precedent of a party electing a speaker to their taste was set with Speaker Martin. The days when the HoC elected the person they thought best for the job without regard to party loyalties and party politics have long gone.
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
No, the Opposition are supposed to stand up to the government. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral.
We have a very good Speaker. If he is removed by the majority party which has a 12 seat majority - then that is fine.
It will set a precedent !
The precedent of a party electing a speaker to their taste was set with Speaker Martin. The days when the HoC elected the person they thought best for the job without regard to party loyalties and party politics have long gone.
Comments
Either you have the confidence of the whole House or you don't.
What the SNP really wants is Mr Cameron back in Number 10
'The only goal that matters to the SNP is independence – and that means assembling a narrative of a Scotland suing for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable political differences. Without a villain, Ms Sturgeon will not have much of a pantomime; so she needs Cameron, the Old Etonian with a Brasenose First, as prime minister. Ideally in coalition with Nigel Farage. And most of all, she wants his in-or-out referendum on the European Union. If England votes to leave and Scotland to stay, it would induce the constitutional crisis that the SNP needs. This is the new road map to independence.
But for now, the SNP needs to win as many seats as possible – which means publicly entertaining the idea of coalition with Ed Miliband. Polls show that such an alliance would be the most popular election result in Scotland – which is precisely why, in the end, Ms Sturgeon can’t allow it to happen.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11362683/What-the-SNP-really-wants-is-Mr-Cameron-back-in-No-10.html
@georgeeaton: Labour source tells me Chuka and Kendall are "behaving like family members taking jewellery off a corpse".
@DPJHodges: @georgeeaton Genuine question. What's a Labour source in this context? Ed's office? Party? Shad Cab? Shad Min? Back bencher?
@georgeeaton: @DPJHodges In this case it's from an unannounced leadership campaign.
@MrHarryCole: @georgeeaton @DPJHodges that will be Burnham then
"I'm an Opinion Polling addict, and, and I've been fighting to get off polling data -
shut up TSE - and, um, since last August. I've been in rehab twice, and I don't
wanna be like people like OGH, that were... and stuff like that.
I wanna be a survivor.
I mean I died again on Election night. So, I'm not...I'm not...my cats' lives
are out. I...I just wanna say sorry to all the fans and stuff, and uh,
I'm glad to be alive, and sorry to me mum as well.
I just want them to know that it's not cool. It's not a cool thing to be
an addict. It's not...you know, you're a slave to it, and it took...it's
taken everything away from me that I loved, and so I've got to rebuild my life."
Labour used to have a menagerie of big beasts: Cunningham, Mowlam, Reid, Cook, Straw, Blunkett, Dobson, Darling, Mandelson, Clarke, as well as Blair and Brown. Smith before them. The contemporary party looks threadbare in comparison.
Blue Labour will win back the support they lost in my opinion
A poll dance...
(Sorry)
The best thing about coalition PR governments is they form a consensus as opposed to adversarial system. The core problem with UK politics is that Labour and the Tories despise each other and make up ever more ridiculous reasons why certain policies of the other side are ridiculous (which rub off on society).
Consensus politics results in less change, less swing, a more stable system and a lot of different voices being found in government. It's by far the best system and FTPT has failed on every measure except ONE - it keeps the Tories and Labour in power no matter how damaging that is to the UK.
@MrHarryCole: Chuka still pushing this "our superior ground operation" myth. It got smashed in the marginals.
Pudsey
Nuneaton
The Rother Valleys and Holborn St Pancras of this world are probably safe enough for the moment.
The Labour Government of Tony Blai in 2005 was ILLEGITIMATE. I'm no hypocrite because I believe the system should force a government to be approaching of not over 50% of the vote if it wasn't a majority.
The only legitimate UK government since the 1960s was the current coalition.
On the subject of Labour leaders - Dennis Skinner? Come on, that'd be something to see.
Ousting the Chief Clerk was petty vandalism. He is a disgrace to the office.
I load up the thread to read and it takes a while with the number of pages. Start going through the posts and around every 10 minutes I get sporting index site appearing on the same tab. I then have to load up all the thread again for the same thing to happen minutes later. I don't touch anything it just changes
Why is this happening. It's hard enough to read site off an iPad anyway without this as well?????
I am honestly baffled how you are capable of responding to posts when you don't seem able to read! I've been trying to praise your f***ing stance on this but you won't accept the praise!! And turning me into a hysteric in the process; I don't know if I've sworn once in 6000 f***ing posts.
Get out the ginger and munchies.
These are the figures.
Con 319
Lab 243
SNP 55
LD 10
PC 3
GRN 1
SPK 1
NI 18
Total 650
If I had used a separate UNS for London, it might have given even better results. Using the England swings , it gives Labour 42. I don't know what the final score was but it was probably more than that. Labour failed to win Hendon, but won Ilford North. Brentford & Isleworth, Enfield North, Ealing Central & Acton.
This only goes to show how poorly Labour did in the whole of Middle Britain including South Yorkshire.
I am leaving out Scotland, as it was well known before the Elections.
Lesson learned tonight - some people will insist upon being offended even after you make clear you are criticising people falsely claiming the principled stance that they hold, not the stance they are holding itself. A depressing lesson to learn - you cannot even agree with people but make a qualifying comment without the risk they will see attacks everywhere, a sad commentary on internet paranoia.
Good night all.
But that's actually an irrelevance. Miliband was portrayed as Red Ed, he never was, he refuses to countenance a budget which is balanced based on tax take. He wanted cuts. The second they went in his manifesto, he lost.
It will set a precedent !
Must have been some consolation.
Again, sorry.
46-year-old moved into his £1.2million London home with Sally
Sally Bercow 'was in relationship with Alan Bercow who moved in with her'
It began at start of General Election campaign, Mail on Sunday understands
A friend says they became close due to 'a mutual appreciation of fine wine'
Alan's wife Erica - who he has one son with - confirmed the affair took place
http://dailym.ai/1KTVWri
I say this full of bitter regret that I didn't put a lot more on a Tory majority on Thursday, and eager to put more money where my mouth and brain are next time.
Q. Where did it go wrong for Labour?
A. They chose the wrong brother.
Q. What should they do now?
A. I don't care.
James Purnell, where can I get odds?
It was not shy but reluctant Tories who wrongfooted us
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1554416.ece
Because it sounds like you are making it up. Anyone not including Galloway in Bradford West is probably making it up in an "after the even this is what I thought" post.
http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/
This is the English boundary commission; there are similar ones for Wales, Scotland and NI.
On current legislation it will be working off the electoral registers as at December 2015 (ie independent registration in full) with a final report in 2018.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/katie-hopkins-slams-anti-austerity-protest-5671246
Have to say I agree with Katie on this one...
(I heard that MPs nominated before members decide)
Check your PM. I am trying to pay my bet.
I'm an extremely shy Tory.
I'm so painfully shy in fact, that I found myself physically incapable of marking an X in the Con box on the ballot paper.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11594883/Labour-is-facing-a-decade-in-the-wilderness-party-grandees-warn.html