politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let’s kill this myth once again. Cameron never had the chan
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let’s kill this myth once again. Cameron never had the chance of a minority government in May 2010
I’ve made this point before but Gord had all the cards in his hand on May 7th 2010. The Tories had failed to win a majority and there was no obligation on him to go to the palace and recommend to the Queen that Cameron should be invited to form a government.
Comments
-
First Pedant Alert: You can't "kill a myth once again"0
-
Well, given the situation of the nation's finances at the time, thank goodness for the coalition!
It would be interesting to see how the markets would have reacted to the political chaos that a minority government would have caused.
This gives me another opportunity to say that the coalition has performed much better and been more cohesive than I ever expected. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems have both, on the whole, behaved maturely and in the national interest. There has been little of the friction and resignations (i.e. toys thrown out of prams) that I expected.0 -
I don't think that's quite right. The Conservatives couldn't have ignored the Lib Dems, for all the reasons you give. But if the Conservatives had held out for more than the Lib Dems were prepared to support in a coalition, the Lib Dems might very well have preferred supply and confidence with the Tories than with Labour, given the manifest exhaustion on the Labour benches. We also shouldn't forget that several Labour figures were uninterested in continuing in government on these numbers and openly said so at the time.
David Cameron reached a coalition deal with the Lib Dems because it suited him well. As it happens, I think he made a very sensible decision. But he could equally sensibly have played much more hard ball if he'd wanted to.0 -
A minority Labour Government would have struggled dreadfully, both in Parliament and, probably, in Cabinet. IIRC the party looked to have run out of steam, and there were all sorts of internal squabbles.0
-
The speech Cameron gave making the bold offer of the Coalition was arguably his finest hour. It was everything that was needed. It forced Brown out (and he was in no hurry to go), it created a stable government with a clear majority and it allowed the markets to be assured that the UK had a government that would stop pretending that everything was somehow ok per Brown and Darling. It really wasn't.
I have said before that modern studies and then history students will be studying the Coalition agreement and how it came about for a long time. Once again the tories did brilliantly and were clearly very well prepared for the eventuality. The Lib Dems could probably have driven a harder bargain but they too worked in the national interest.
Next time around, as Cameron is already PM, a minority government is much more feasible but it would still be unwise. There are many, many cuts and difficult decisions to come as we try to eliminate the largest structural deficit in the developed world. Only a government with a broad base and a clear majority is going to be able to achieve this.
At the moment the only such government that seems at all likely would be a Labour majority. I genuinely believe that that would be a disaster. Labour seemed to have learned nothing from their past mistakes and are simply not willing to engage in the work that needs to be done. They have opposed all of the modest cuts that the economy could stand in this Parliament. I really cannot see them making the necessary cuts in the next.0 -
I concur. It's been relatively boring for us here compared to expectationJosiasJessop said:Well, given the situation of the nation's finances at the time, thank goodness for the coalition!
It would be interesting to see how the markets would have reacted to the political chaos that a minority government would have caused.
This gives me another opportunity to say that the coalition has performed much better and been more cohesive than I ever expected. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems have both, on the whole, behaved maturely and in the national interest. There has been little of the friction and resignations (i.e. toys thrown out of prams) that I expected.0 -
This is a load of nincompoopobulous ex-post-facto-revisionist pobblequack.
The elephant in the room which is not even mentioned in the article is that the Parliamentary Labour Party was not in the mood to stay in government, and was not in the mood to do a confidence-and-whatever-else deal with the Lib Dems, either with Gordon Brown or David Miliharman or whoever else. The idea that the Labour PLP would have put up with a few months of unstable ad-hoc governing in the midst of a simultaneous leadership election is doubleplusdribblefrantic.
The Lib Dems would have known that it would be suicidal to prop up a rotten minority Labour government, because they would have known that it would lead to both Labour and the Lib Dems being massacred in a second general election - i.e. a majority Conservative government with no Lib Dem influence whatever.
Labour would have gone into opposition regardless of whether there was any deal or coalition between the Conservative Party and the Lib Dems; without the Coalition there *would* indeed have been a minority Conservative government and Gordon Brown would have advised the Queen accordingly.0 -
So no change there.JohnLoony said:This is a load of nincompoopobulous ex-post-facto-revisionist pobblequack.
The Lib Dems would have known that it would be suicidal to prop up a rotten minority Labour government, because they would have known that it would lead to both Labour and the Lib Dems being massacred in a second general election...
0 -
Jonathan said:
So no change there.JohnLoony said:This is a load of nincompoopobulous ex-post-facto-revisionist pobblequack.
The Lib Dems would have known that it would be suicidal to prop up a rotten minority ... government, because they would have known that it would lead to both ... and the Lib Dems being massacred in a second general election...0 -
Totally O/T, but does anyone have the same problems as me re access to PB. If I leave the site and come back to it I’m told that m,y password isn’t recognised and I must select a new one. Ten minutes later the new password doesn’t work.0
-
The other thing that would have happened in the 2nd GE in October 2010 (apart from a LibLab bloodbath and a Conservative landslide) is that MK would have won all the seats in Cornwall, proclaimed UDI, invaded Devon and annexed SeanT's birthplace.0
-
Well, it's a view but it doesn't kill a myth, it argues against an opinion.
1. As mentioned by antifrank, the Lib Dems could have supported the Conservatives in a Supply and Confidence agreement - something that was explicitly on the table, as documented by various actors during the days of negotiations.
2. The Lib Dems could have not supported a Labour Queen's speech (abstaining would have given the Tories a majority), which would have led directly to a Vote of No Confidence in the Labour government, even if it wasn't treated as such (which frankly, given the importance of a Queen's Speech, it should be). Assuming the Lib Dems didn't then back Labour, they'd have been out and Cameron, as Leader of the Opposition, would have been invited to try to form a government.
3. Labour could have been brought down by dissenting voices from inside.
I simply don't see how the Lib Dems could have given Labour the blank cheque necessary for the scenario to work. Who do you negotiate with to form any agreement if Brown is beyond consideration and there's no replacement? For that very reason, I don't just think that the Tories were the most likely option but in reality, the only option.
If, however, I'm wrong in that above assumption, I do agree with Mike that it would have been a very unstable government, one which would have continued to lose support as it was attacked by the financial markets both for the uncertainty over its leadership, policies and future, and for the policies it would have had to follow in the interim (certainly next to no cuts, whoever was Chancellor - there'd be too much backbench opposition for a government a long way from a majority to start with, and the prospective leaders would have had to court the unions for support), which would have looked navel-gazing in its leadership election at a time when the economy was still in crisis, and which would have suffered far more - as the government - from the drip, drip of resignations over expenses and election scandals.
I'm sure that if the Lib Dems had been daft enough to put Labour back in - and to keep on voting for them in key divisions - both parties would have suffered and there'd only be one outcome to that in the next election, whenever that might have been.0 -
A LibDem Lab minority govt would have been truly unstable.
Would a Conservative minority have fared worse? I suspect it would have been in a holding pattern for a few months before winning a second election based upon a honeymoon "give us the tools to complete the job" election.
I think it unwise to rule out any coalition in advance, the electorate may deliver a parliament where only one coalition is possible once again.
Overall I too think the coalition has worked well. Still much to do, but the country is a better place than 2010 on so many parameters.0 -
One other point to make: Lab + LD on the 2010 figures (and now, for that matter), was and is still not a majority.0
-
Labour's 258 seats was simply too few to construct and reliably command a majority.0
-
The media was on Brown's back as soon as the results came in. Can you imagine their reaction if he had clung on any longer than he had already? And a Labour/LD confidence and supply agreement with a majority of 8 over the Tories (not even counting the other parties) wouldn't have lasted very long at all.0
-
There is an existentially categorical difference between the Lib Dems propping up a Conservative government (which would otherwise be in a minority) and propping up a minority Labour government. In 2010 the Labour government had been defeated, thrown out, expelled, ceased to be, was frenziedly unpopular and had only 29% of the votes. The Conservative Party, on the other hand, was the largest party and had a clear mandate to have the first bite of the armadillo.Jonathan said:
So no change there.JohnLoony said:This is a load of nincompoopobulous ex-post-facto-revisionist pobblequack.
The Lib Dems would have known that it would be suicidal to prop up a rotten minority ... government, because they would have known that it would lead to both ... and the Lib Dems being massacred in a second general election...
The alternative scenario - of an unstable (still in a minority, even in combination) agreement between Labour and the Lib Dems - could, constitutionally, have happened - but in order for it to do so it would require the collaboration of the leading members of both parties to allow it to happen in the full knowledge that there would inevitably be a Conservative landslide before the end of 2010. In other words, it would have been necessary for Brown, Harman, Miliband, Clegg, Cable and others all to be secret undercover Conservative agents, secretly and cunningly plotting to destroy their own parties' electoral chances for 10 years ahead.0 -
I get logged out every now and again but the old paswrd works, with the exception of my Apple where it does not recognise it. Not sure why, but cannot post on PB from Apple.OldKingCole said:
Totally O/T, but does anyone have the same problems as me re access to PB. If I leave the site and come back to it I’m told that m,y password isn’t recognised and I must select a new one. Ten minutes later the new password doesn’t work.
0 -
I think that one of the major facts that gets ignored in all of this was that by the election a significant number, maybe even a majority of Labour MPs had finally recognised that Brown was demented and not fit to be PM. Their priority was getting rid of him as leader and getting a fresh start not trying to run a government.
With the slightly unexpected win of Ed Miliband they did not get as fresh a start as they might of done but David deserved no better given his cowardice in challenging Brown when invited to do so by Darling.
Labour have done extraordinarly well in coming together as a unified party under Ed and the old Blair/Brown splits have largely been swept away, at least in public. They do look hungry for power again, less than 4 years after they lost it. Ed deserves a lot of credit for that. The tories took much, much longer to recover. Arguably they still haven't which is one of the things that makes Cameron's life so difficult.0 -
The Lib Dems could not have fared worse then they have with the Tories as partners. What are they on now,8%?
0 -
Ah = happy days!!! Great thread picture... my day is off to a flyer.... thanks OGH0
-
But as Mike points out, it's where the votes are that's most important. The Lib Dems will lose seats where they're up against Labour and could do badly in Scotland but in most of their seats, they face the Conservatives as opposition and in the current coalition, that's not too big a threat. On the other hand, that picture would be reversed had they propped up Labour.Jonathan said:The Lib Dems could not have fared worse then they have with the Tories as partners. What are they on now,8%?
0 -
I can't log in from an iPhone, even if I've just reset my password and tested that I'm using the correct one through a desktop browser. Anyone managed to fix that issue?foxinsoxuk said:I get logged out every now and again but the old paswrd works, with the exception of my Apple where it does not recognise it. Not sure why, but cannot post on PB from Apple.
OldKingCole said:Totally O/T, but does anyone have the same problems as me re access to PB. If I leave the site and come back to it I’m told that m,y password isn’t recognised and I must select a new one. Ten minutes later the new password doesn’t work.
On topic, I think David Herdson's analysis, particularly point 2 is correct: because Gordon was already PM he didn't need to be invited to form a government by HMQ (I think that's right though not quite certain of the detail - at the very least convention demands she invite him to do so even if he couldn't command a majority). Assuming he accepted the challenge, he could form whatever government he felt like. However, if the LDs had declined to back the Queen's Speech, or for that matter abstained on a Conservative no confidence motion, he would have had to tender his resignation, leading to Cameron as the leader of the largest party being invited to attempt to form a government. AFAIK all of these steps would be good old British convention (e.g. HMQ could invite Clegg not Cameron to have a crack if she really wanted to) rather than "compulsory" - which means that there would have been no realistic possibility of any person involved failing to follow the conventions.0 -
OT Is this a new poll?
An experimental question put by ICM for The Scotsman poll asked people to predict what the result would be. Pollsters said this “Wisdom” question taps into the “hive mind” of voters.
The poll of 1,004 Scots showed that, on average, voters expected the result of the vote on 18 September to be 53 per cent against independence and 47 per cent in favour.
However, asking those who have decided how they will vote a more traditional polling question, 57 per cent backed the No camp, while 43 per cent favoured independence.
Of all those polled, 49 per cent are against independence and 37 per cent in favour, marking an increase of five points in the No vote’s lead since Chancellor George Osborne, Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls and Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander ruled out allowing an independent Scotland to join a sterling currency union.
The result of the so-called “Wisdom” question on how people think the result will end up has been taken as a warning by both sides that the contest is still close.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-points-to-close-result-1-33173100 -
You can if it's a zombie myth, which many appear to be.GeoffM said:First Pedant Alert: You can't "kill a myth once again"
0 -
A mild antidote to yesterday's Standard Life hysteria.
Cllr Stuart Currie @cllrStu 18 mins
Willie Walsh, CEO Brit Airways asked if making plans in case of #indy - "No we think (indy) could be positive for us if it happens"
Mrs F @AyrDelighted 21 mins
BBC to BA chief exec "do u have contingencies planned if Scots vote yes?" BA reply "no, scot gov plan to abolish APD so it'll be a benefit"
0 -
Don't think so, unless there's more than one wisdom poll. I believe that headline figure was reported at least a week ago.Financier said:OT Is this a new poll?
0 -
Wow, a company that does not have its headquarters in Scotland says no problem.Theuniondivvie said:A mild antidote to yesterday's Standard Life hysteria.
Cllr Stuart Currie @cllrStu 18 mins
Willie Walsh, CEO Brit Airways asked if making plans in case of #indy - "No we think (indy) could be positive for us if it happens"
Mrs F @AyrDelighted 21 mins
BBC to BA chief exec "do u have contingencies planned if Scots vote yes?" BA reply "no, scot gov plan to abolish APD so it'll be a benefit"
That's amazing.
Can you get a quote from the CEO of Hersheys?0 -
Ooh, the PB Unionist rebuttal unit into instant action!Scott_P said:
Wow, a company that does not have its headquarters in Scotland says no problem.Theuniondivvie said:A mild antidote to yesterday's Standard Life hysteria.
Cllr Stuart Currie @cllrStu 18 mins
Willie Walsh, CEO Brit Airways asked if making plans in case of #indy - "No we think (indy) could be positive for us if it happens"
Mrs F @AyrDelighted 21 mins
BBC to BA chief exec "do u have contingencies planned if Scots vote yes?" BA reply "no, scot gov plan to abolish APD so it'll be a benefit"
That's amazing.
Can you get a quote from the CEO of Hersheys?
0 -
I’m using Apple. Not tried from my iPhone; don’t really know why. Problem seems to be worse on my iMac than my MacAir, but it’s erratic in any case.foxinsoxuk said:I get logged out every now and again but the old paswrd works, with the exception of my Apple where it does not recognise it. Not sure why, but cannot post on PB from Apple.
OldKingCole said:Totally O/T, but does anyone have the same problems as me re access to PB. If I leave the site and come back to it I’m told that m,y password isn’t recognised and I must select a new one. Ten minutes later the new password doesn’t work.
Back on topic there’s a set of C-i-F readers who seem to to think that either a minority Lab or a Lab/LD government was possible, and in spite of both reasoned argument and vulgar abuse stick to that view.
It’s rather touching, actually. I sometimes think they believe in Father Christmas, too!0 -
A Welsh Poll
Fewer than one in five Welsh voters say they would like to see an independent Scotland, a BBC Cymru Wales poll reveals.
The survey found only 5% of people want to see an independent Wales, but that figure rose to 7% in the event of an independent Scotland.
The number of voters who want to see the Welsh assembly abolished has risen 10% in the past four years.
But more than a third said they would like to see it gain more powers.
BBC Cymru Wales' annual St David's Day poll, carried out by pollsters ICM, found the most popular constitutional preference was for more powers for the Welsh assembly, with 37% support.
But 23% said they wanted to see it abolished, a figure 10% higher than that recorded in 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-263782740 -
Main site is down because Register.com through which PB goes in also down.
No ideas how long it will take.
0 -
PB's been inaccessible for me for the last hour, either through my home router or through 3G (so different paths).
I thought it may have objected to my last post ...0 -
Slevers dripping from him as he denigrates Scotland yet again, Toom Tabard.Theuniondivvie said:
Ooh, the PB Unionist rebuttal unit into instant action!Scott_P said:
Wow, a company that does not have its headquarters in Scotland says no problem.Theuniondivvie said:A mild antidote to yesterday's Standard Life hysteria.
Cllr Stuart Currie @cllrStu 18 mins
Willie Walsh, CEO Brit Airways asked if making plans in case of #indy - "No we think (indy) could be positive for us if it happens"
Mrs F @AyrDelighted 21 mins
BBC to BA chief exec "do u have contingencies planned if Scots vote yes?" BA reply "no, scot gov plan to abolish APD so it'll be a benefit"
That's amazing.
Can you get a quote from the CEO of Hersheys?0 -
Good morning, everyone.
F1: engine homologation is today. Renault want an extension. Because of the entirely fair and reasonable way the voting works (6 for Ecclestone, 6 for Todt, 1 each for six teams) if Ecclestone and Todt agree, it'll go through.
It shouldn't. But I imagine an extension will be granted.
Glad pb.com's back, and cheers for the explanation, Mr. Smithson.
King Cole, thankfully I've not suffered that, though occasionally I got logged out and in again for no apparent reason.0 -
F1: amusing little rumour, from the BBC livefeed:
"One of the best rumours of the winter is about Sebastian Vettel. At the first test in Jerez, it is said anecdotally, midway through the second day, after a fractured and massively truncated programme of kangaroo-hopping around laps as a result of the chronic problems of the Renault engine, the world champion got out of his car and said something along the lines of: 'This is pointless; I'm not driving that again until it's sorted out.' And left."0 -
Lib could have done a supply and confidence deal and a "look how grownup and responsible we are" act followed by pulling the plug at the best moment doing a "we can't stand idly by while the evil tories are doing x" act. It wouldn't have lasted but it could have been done.0
-
The QT audience was very unhappy with the Assembly's NHS policy, last night. Unusual to see a Tory being cheered and Labour being barracked on the NHS.
It may be developing into a real scandal there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10652645/Surgeons-fear-over-heart-surgery-patients-in-Wales.htmlFinancier said:A Welsh Poll
Fewer than one in five Welsh voters say they would like to see an independent Scotland, a BBC Cymru Wales poll reveals.
The survey found only 5% of people want to see an independent Wales, but that figure rose to 7% in the event of an independent Scotland.
The number of voters who want to see the Welsh assembly abolished has risen 10% in the past four years.
But more than a third said they would like to see it gain more powers.
BBC Cymru Wales' annual St David's Day poll, carried out by pollsters ICM, found the most popular constitutional preference was for more powers for the Welsh assembly, with 37% support.
But 23% said they wanted to see it abolished, a figure 10% higher than that recorded in 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-263782740 -
He has a point, Standard Life is currently HQed in Scotland, BA is not.Theuniondivvie said:<
Ooh, the PB Unionist rebuttal unit into instant action!0 -
If an independent Scotland abolished APD as IAG are suggesting then it may add usefully to airline profits. Is the Scottish white paper against these green taxes?RobD said:
He has a point, Standard Life is currently HQed in Scotland, BA is not.Theuniondivvie said:<
Ooh, the PB Unionist rebuttal unit into instant action!0 -
Most people on this thread have read this wrongly
My point is that Cameron would never have got the minority government opportunity because Brown would have sat tight as he had every right to do.
0 -
Labour became unified after it became obvious the Cameroons weren't going to last. If the Cameroon / moderniser / City PR company wing of the Tories weren't so wrong about where the votes were and had looked like they were going to walk the next election then Lab would have gone into full civil war mode.DavidL said:I think that one of the major facts that gets ignored in all of this was that by the election a significant number, maybe even a majority of Labour MPs had finally recognised that Brown was demented and not fit to be PM. Their priority was getting rid of him as leader and getting a fresh start not trying to run a government.
With the slightly unexpected win of Ed Miliband they did not get as fresh a start as they might of done but David deserved no better given his cowardice in challenging Brown when invited to do so by Darling.
Labour have done extraordinarly well in coming together as a unified party under Ed and the old Blair/Brown splits have largely been swept away, at least in public. They do look hungry for power again, less than 4 years after they lost it. Ed deserves a lot of credit for that. The tories took much, much longer to recover. Arguably they still haven't which is one of the things that makes Cameron's life so difficult.
0 -
And both will be in same place next year. Difference is all their taxes will not be flowing to LondonRobD said:
He has a point, Standard Life is currently HQed in Scotland, BA is not.Theuniondivvie said:<
Ooh, the PB Unionist rebuttal unit into instant action!0 -
After the No vote.malcolmg said:
And both will be in same place next yearRobD said:
He has a point, Standard Life is currently HQed in Scotland, BA is not.Theuniondivvie said:<
Ooh, the PB Unionist rebuttal unit into instant action!
0 -
Ever the dreamerTheWatcher said:
After the No vote.malcolmg said:
And both will be in same place next yearRobD said:
He has a point, Standard Life is currently HQed in Scotland, BA is not.Theuniondivvie said:<
Ooh, the PB Unionist rebuttal unit into instant action!0 -
I know you are Malcolm. Chin up.malcolmg said:
Ever the dreamerTheWatcher said:
After the No vote.malcolmg said:
And both will be in same place next yearRobD said:
He has a point, Standard Life is currently HQed in Scotland, BA is not.Theuniondivvie said:<
Ooh, the PB Unionist rebuttal unit into instant action!
0 -
DavidL and JohnL made the point upthread that Brown sitting tight would have been a disaster for the country. Whoever had or had not won the election Labour, and Brown in particular, had lost it.
In more senses than one!0 -
That ties into the Lib problem too. If the Cameroons weren't so clueless about their own vote the Libs might have benefited from a Lab civil war.MrJones said:
Labour became unified after it became obvious the Cameroons weren't going to last. If the Cameroon / moderniser / City PR company wing of the Tories weren't so wrong about where the votes were and had looked like they were going to walk the next election then Lab would have gone into full civil war mode.DavidL said:I think that one of the major facts that gets ignored in all of this was that by the election a significant number, maybe even a majority of Labour MPs had finally recognised that Brown was demented and not fit to be PM. Their priority was getting rid of him as leader and getting a fresh start not trying to run a government.
With the slightly unexpected win of Ed Miliband they did not get as fresh a start as they might of done but David deserved no better given his cowardice in challenging Brown when invited to do so by Darling.
Labour have done extraordinarly well in coming together as a unified party under Ed and the old Blair/Brown splits have largely been swept away, at least in public. They do look hungry for power again, less than 4 years after they lost it. Ed deserves a lot of credit for that. The tories took much, much longer to recover. Arguably they still haven't which is one of the things that makes Cameron's life so difficult.
0 -
Stan Collymore on Twitter yesterday: "I advocate an independent England, Scotland, Wales, and all Ireland. It's 2014, the Empire and its bullshit is dead. Friendly neighbours."
If only the bullshit really was dead. It will be soon.0 -
That wouldn't have lasted either though - and the LIbs would have got the benefit of Lab voters cringing at the increasing mentalness.MikeSmithson said:Most people on this thread have read this wrongly
My point is that Cameron would never have got the minority government opportunity because Brown would have sat tight as he had every right to do.
0 -
Disappointed Somerset wasn't mentioned.Stuart_Dickson said:Stan Collymore on Twitter yesterday: "I advocate an independent England, Scotland, Wales, and all Ireland. It's 2014, the Empire and its bullshit is dead. Friendly neighbours."
If only the bullshit really was dead. It will be soon.0 -
There was also the option of negotiating a national government to deal with the deficit. It is this I had hoped the LDs would propose as more consistent with their ostensible manifesto position. More to the point it is something that may yet be required.0
-
F1: Red Bull have managed 4 (installation) laps in 3 hours. Fortunate for them F1 is likely to have one of its trademark rule-bending moments today to help out Renault.0
-
The Scotsman suffers a year-on-year fall of 12.85%. I might have stopped laughing by the time they go tits up.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/27/abcs-local-newspapers
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-263664640 -
Quite.....Stuart_Dickson said:
If only the bullshit really was dead. It will be soon.
Now Salmond is trying to rewrite the future
In the Land of Eck, nothing is what it seems. In this other world, what Alex Salmond pronounces is what will be – no matter what everyone else, no matter how prestigious or expert, says.
And so it was again yesterday. The boss of one of Scotland's oldest and most highly regarded institutions said independence threatened its continued existence in its present form in Edinburgh.
He did so in words that everyone on every last corner of this country, if not the planet, understood; indeed the bills for the Edinburgh Evening News, a newspaper that has studiously refrained from taking sides in the referendum debate, shrieked the message on every street corner: "Standard Life Warns It May Leave Capital."
But down in the Nat bunker, things were different.......
.......But when it comes to rewriting history there's nothing to beat politicians. However, where Alex Salmond differs from the common herd is that he's trying to rewrite the future.
But they're all bluffing, says Mr Salmond. He'll stare them down, he says. It is the most bizarre, the emptiest approach to a major plank of government policy that anyone has ever heard.
And from the blank looks on the faces of many of his cabinet colleagues, that's what they think too.
This emperor really does have no clothes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10666579/Now-Salmond-is-trying-to-rewrite-the-future.html
0 -
I really do wish you would stop quoting all the time from the DT. It's not the best newspaper on the indy referendum - even the Herald would be better, and that's a newspaper even my bidie-in has realised often has a headline which is completely inconsistent with the actual facts in the story.CarlottaVance said:
Quite.....Stuart_Dickson said:
If only the bullshit really was dead. It will be soon.
Now Salmond is trying to rewrite the future
In the Land of Eck, nothing is what it seems. In this other world, what Alex Salmond pronounces is what will be – no matter what everyone else, no matter how prestigious or expert, says.
And so it was again yesterday. The boss of one of Scotland's oldest and most highly regarded institutions said independence threatened its continued existence in its present form in Edinburgh.
He did so in words that everyone on every last corner of this country, if not the planet, understood; indeed the bills for the Edinburgh Evening News, a newspaper that has studiously refrained from taking sides in the referendum debate, shrieked the message on every street corner: "Standard Life Warns It May Leave Capital."
But down in the Nat bunker, things were different.......
.......But when it comes to rewriting history there's nothing to beat politicians. However, where Alex Salmond differs from the common herd is that he's trying to rewrite the future.
But they're all bluffing, says Mr Salmond. He'll stare them down, he says. It is the most bizarre, the emptiest approach to a major plank of government policy that anyone has ever heard.
And from the blank looks on the faces of many of his cabinet colleagues, that's what they think too.
This emperor really does have no clothes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10666579/Now-Salmond-is-trying-to-rewrite-the-future.html
0 -
Polruan, OldKingCole, foxinsoxuk:
To post from an Apple browser, you need to change Safari's privacy settings to allow third-party cookies. (By default it disallows them.) That's because Vanilla manages your login through cookies, and it's a third-party site (i.e. the comments are hosted by Vanilla, not on politicalbetting.com).
Personally I dislike third-party cookies hugely (I don't want Google following me all over the web, thanks) so I use Firefox, with third-party cookies enabled, purely for posting on PB; and return to my usual browser for other sites.0 -
Swedish ghoul gloats over potential jobs losses in Scotland.Stuart_Dickson said:The Scotsman suffers a year-on-year fall of 12.85%. I might have stopped laughing by the time they go tits up.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/27/abcs-local-newspapers
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-26366464
0 -
Miss Vance, point of order: you can't rewrite the future, because it hasn't been written yet.
That said, Salmond's approach does appear rather odd.0 -
I don't quote 'all the time' from the Telegraph - yesterday I quoted the BBC and Left Foot Forward!Carnyx said:
I really do wish you would stop quoting all the time from the DT. It's not the best newspaper on the indy referendum - even the Herald would be better, and that's a newspaper even my bidie-in has realised often has a headline which is completely inconsistent with the actual facts in the story.CarlottaVance said:
Quite.....Stuart_Dickson said:
If only the bullshit really was dead. It will be soon.
Now Salmond is trying to rewrite the future
In the Land of Eck, nothing is what it seems. In this other world, what Alex Salmond pronounces is what will be – no matter what everyone else, no matter how prestigious or expert, says.
And so it was again yesterday. The boss of one of Scotland's oldest and most highly regarded institutions said independence threatened its continued existence in its present form in Edinburgh.
He did so in words that everyone on every last corner of this country, if not the planet, understood; indeed the bills for the Edinburgh Evening News, a newspaper that has studiously refrained from taking sides in the referendum debate, shrieked the message on every street corner: "Standard Life Warns It May Leave Capital."
But down in the Nat bunker, things were different.......
.......But when it comes to rewriting history there's nothing to beat politicians. However, where Alex Salmond differs from the common herd is that he's trying to rewrite the future.
But they're all bluffing, says Mr Salmond. He'll stare them down, he says. It is the most bizarre, the emptiest approach to a major plank of government policy that anyone has ever heard.
And from the blank looks on the faces of many of his cabinet colleagues, that's what they think too.
This emperor really does have no clothes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10666579/Now-Salmond-is-trying-to-rewrite-the-future.html
Since there isn't 'news' in the Massie piece I quoted it because it was entertainingly written.....
0 -
0
-
I think that, with two different leaders, the coalition might well never have been formed and the Tories would have gone for a snap second election which the other parties couldn't have afforded, financially or emotionally. I can understand a Torypeebie being put out that this didn't happen.
What's really scaring them, of course, is the thought of a second successive hung Parliament, this time with Labour as the largest Party. Ed Miliband offers the Tories a Grand co-alition "because the nature of what must be done must command widespread confidence". This puts the Tories in a nice cleft stick: say "yes" and the base p*sses off to UKIP; say "no" and Ed calls a swift second election and secures a handsome majority on the back of accusing the Tories of putting Party before Country.
And if I were a Tory, I'd be scared, too. Indeed, whichever of the major Parties comes second next time may well have run out of road, so fast is our political landscape changing.0 -
I'd assumed it was a crack team of Cornerstone hackers trying to kill the thread.MikeSmithson said:Main site is down because Register.com through which PB goes in also down.
No ideas how long it will take.0 -
Fundamentally wrong Mike.MikeSmithson said:Most people on this thread have read this wrongly
My point is that Cameron would never have got the minority government opportunity because Brown would have sat tight as he had every right to do.
1. The likelihood of the LibDems propping up Gordon Brown as PM for months whilst Labour elected a new leader is close to zero. Further the numbers for Lab/LibDem were 11 short of a majority.
2. PM Brown was entitled to remain in office until defeated, most likely in the Queens Speech. However the pressure on him to resign as a substantially general election defeated PM in terms of seats and votes would have been enormous.
3. You also note that PM David Miliband would have asked for a dissolution for an early election. It's highly likely this would not have been granted as the Queen's advisors would likely have told her to send for Cameron in an attempt to form an administration. The Queen is not obliged to grant a dissolution if an viable alternative exists.
There is precedent in the Feb 74 election where neither party had a majority but Heath remained in office for a few days whilst a failed attempt to form a Con/Lib was tried. Heath resigned, having not tried for a dissolution, and Wilson became PM of a minority government.
Accordingly all other options having failed in your scenario it is almost certain Cameron would have formed a minority administration.
0 -
As the old saying of New Labour (and before that, the Soviet Union) went - 'The Future is Certain! Its the past that keeps changing...'Morris_Dancer said:Miss Vance, point of order: you can't rewrite the future, because it hasn't been written yet.
That said, Salmond's approach does appear rather odd.
0 -
To be fair most newspapers are suffering drops, but over the last few years the Scotsman has been consistently amongst the worst - with other symptoms including a reduction in length and quality which are evidently only palliative. Their owners stopped it being given ABC audit a while back (can't think why) but Greenslade's piece gives the facts.Stuart_Dickson said:The Scotsman suffers a year-on-year fall of 12.85%. I might have stopped laughing by the time they go tits up.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/27/abcs-local-newspapers
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-26366464
This is pretty astounding for what used to be the main paper of the Edinburgh (especially) and much of the Scottish middle and upper classes, and was a great middle of the road read till a certain A. Neil got his paws on it. One factor has to be the extraordinarily poor and biased coverage of politics - I am sure a lot of its current subscribers are elderly people who get it because it's their lifelong habit. I used to take it (despite having to hold my nose at some of the columnists) but stopped when the Sunday edition Photoshopped a swastika on a photo of some chaps with a Saltire flag. IT - or what it used to be - will be a huge loss to political and social life in Scotland.
0 -
Okay, 'much' of the time!CarlottaVance said:
I don't quote 'all the time' from the Telegraph - yesterday I quoted the BBC and Left Foot Forward!Carnyx said:
I really do wish you would stop quoting all the time from the DT. It's not the best newspaper on the indy referendum - even the Herald would be better, and that's a newspaper even my bidie-in has realised often has a headline which is completely inconsistent with the actual facts in the story.CarlottaVance said:
Quite.....Stuart_Dickson said:
If only the bullshit really was dead. It will be soon.
Now Salmond is trying to rewrite the future
In the Land of Eck, nothing is what it seems. In this other world, what Alex Salmond pronounces is what will be – no matter what everyone else, no matter how prestigious or expert, says.
And so it was again yesterday. The boss of one of Scotland's oldest and most highly regarded institutions said independence threatened its continued existence in its present form in Edinburgh.
He did so in words that everyone on every last corner of this country, if not the planet, understood; indeed the bills for the Edinburgh Evening News, a newspaper that has studiously refrained from taking sides in the referendum debate, shrieked the message on every street corner: "Standard Life Warns It May Leave Capital."
But down in the Nat bunker, things were different.......
.......But when it comes to rewriting history there's nothing to beat politicians. However, where Alex Salmond differs from the common herd is that he's trying to rewrite the future.
But they're all bluffing, says Mr Salmond. He'll stare them down, he says. It is the most bizarre, the emptiest approach to a major plank of government policy that anyone has ever heard.
And from the blank looks on the faces of many of his cabinet colleagues, that's what they think too.
This emperor really does have no clothes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10666579/Now-Salmond-is-trying-to-rewrite-the-future.html
Since there isn't 'news' in the Massie piece I quoted it because it was entertainingly written.....
0 -
Interesting that in 1992 Gordon Brown was calling for the Conservatives to give up power even if they fell just one seat short of the magic 326 figure:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7enLKrxLrI&
By comparison, in 2010 he felt it was okay to hang on despite falling 68 seats short.0 -
I wonder how David Cameron's "love-bomb" campaign is going?
Whoops-a-Daisy, it's a car crash. Who'd've thunk it?
'Celebrity hairstylist Nicky Clarke says Scots are not educated enough to make political decisions on their own'
- The English media personality claims Scots do not understand economics and need to wise up before voting in the independence referendum in September.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/celebrity-hairstylist-nicky-clarke-scots-3188406#.Uw-fgaDZa6H.facebook
More please Mr Cameron! Much more.0 -
Whilst I agree that might have been possible in 2010 I am not sure the politics or personalities would make it practical in 2015. The various parties have moved even further apart and the Tories will claim that the economy has improved so much that such a deal would be unnecessary.johnstevens said:There was also the option of negotiating a national government to deal with the deficit. It is this I had hoped the LDs would propose as more consistent with their ostensible manifesto position. More to the point it is something that may yet be required.
0 -
F1: Benson got it wrong, but I'm glad he did:
"It's fair to say Renault's request for an extension to the engine homologation deadline has stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest. It's a very controversial thing to request, for two reasons - 1) these engine rules are effectively only in F1 because Renault wanted them and threatened to quit if they were not introduced; 2) the manufacturers have already had an extra year to develop the engines, after the initial date for the introduction of hybrid turbos was pushed back from 2013. Renault want an extra two months of development before specs are frozen, by the way. Contrary to what I wrote earlier, unanimity is needed for Renault's request to pass. Apologies for any confusion."
I imagine Mercedes will have a short, Anglo-Saxon response to Renault's suggestion.
Mr. Dickson, I'm not sure why the opinions of Clarke and Collymore are particularly relevant.0 -
Stan "The Man" Collymore - the best striker ever to grace a Forest shirt - backs Scottish independence. This one ain't over!0
-
Sorry Mike but that's not the case unless the Lib Dems, and probably others, had backed Labour in key votes.MikeSmithson said:Most people on this thread have read this wrongly
My point is that Cameron would never have got the minority government opportunity because Brown would have sat tight as he had every right to do.
Had Brown not resigned the government then within three weeks there'd have been a vote on Labour's Queen's Speech. Apart from anything else, that Speech would have been an absurdity, coming in the middle of a Labour leadership campaign when it's entirely plausible that some candidates dissented from its contents. Queen's Speeches and Budgets are usually regarded as votes of confidence as if parliament will not support the government's programme or supply it the funds, then that's tantamount to losing the support of the Commons.
Unless the Lib Dems had backed Labour on the Queen's Speech, there would have been immense pressure for Labour - which had already been described as having lost and no mandate to carry on by people like John Reid and David Blunkett, IIRC - to resign. If Brown had ignored that pressure, the Conservatives would without doubt have tabled a formal Vote of No Confidence which again, unless the Lib Dems had backed Labour, would have gone against the government. At that point, Brown would have had no option but to resign, both personally and on behalf of the government. By convention, the Queen would then call on Cameron, as Leader of the Opposition, to try to form a government.
Brown could have tried to stay in Number 10 but without a Lab-LD deal - something which I just can't accept was a possibility when the Lib Dems had no-one to do a deal with once Brown resigned - he couldn't have lasted the month.0 -
That's an improvement on Ms Lamont - who thinks Scots are genetically incapable of making political decisions (an assertion in her recent debate with Ms Sturgeon)!Stuart_Dickson said:I wonder how David Cameron's "love-bomb" campaign is going?
Whoops-a-Daisy, it's a car crash. Who'd've thunk it?
'Celebrity hairstylist Nicky Clarke says Scots are not educated enough to make political decisions on their own'
- The English media personality claims Scots do not understand economics and need to wise up before voting in the independence referendum in September.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/celebrity-hairstylist-nicky-clarke-scots-3188406#.Uw-fgaDZa6H.facebook
More please Mr Cameron! Much more.
0 -
This is what our host has forgotten:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/7709067/Liberal-Democrats-behaving-like-every-harlot-in-history-says-David-Blunkett.html
"Adding that the Conservatives were in a stronger position to form a stable Government, he [David Blunkett] urged his party's leadership to accept a period in opposition rather than an unworkable coalition.
"I don’t think it will bring stability, I think it will lead to a lack of legitimacy and I think it will make people think that we haven’t listened to them," he told the BBC."
"John Reid warned that a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would result in “mutually assured destruction” for both parties."
There was direct and public opposition to the idea of a Lib-Lab pact at a very senior level in the Labour party. It would not have flown.0 -
In a more serious point - British Airways have lined up on the nationalist side in the Indy ref. wasn't expecting that. Walsh seems to think the SNP's planned air policies will benefit them.0
-
I was brought up with The Scotsman. My dad used to buy it every day. Back then it was still a great liberal title, a real quality broadsheet. It was a tremendous asset to the self-government campaign throughout the dark cays of the 1980s.Carnyx said:
To be fair most newspapers are suffering drops, but over the last few years the Scotsman has been consistently amongst the worst - with other symptoms including a reduction in length and quality which are evidently only palliative. Their owners stopped it being given ABC audit a while back (can't think why) but Greenslade's piece gives the facts.Stuart_Dickson said:The Scotsman suffers a year-on-year fall of 12.85%. I might have stopped laughing by the time they go tits up.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/27/abcs-local-newspapers
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-26366464
This is pretty astounding for what used to be the main paper of the Edinburgh (especially) and much of the Scottish middle and upper classes, and was a great middle of the road read till a certain A. Neil got his paws on it. One factor has to be the extraordinarily poor and biased coverage of politics - I am sure a lot of its current subscribers are elderly people who get it because it's their lifelong habit. I used to take it (despite having to hold my nose at some of the columnists) but stopped when the Sunday edition Photoshopped a swastika on a photo of some chaps with a Saltire flag. IT - or what it used to be - will be a huge loss to political and social life in Scotland.
What Andrew Neil did to the Scotsman, and what Johnston Press continues to do, is straightforward vandalism of a national treasure and institution. It has gone way too far to ever recover its reputation.
0 -
The same Stan Collymore who punched Ulrika Jonsson in a public bar, and was bound over to keep the peace for threatening another woman?BobaFett said:Stan "The Man" Collymore - the best striker ever to grace a Forest shirt - backs Scottish independence. This one ain't over!
I wouldn't want him as a poster boy for my campaign.
0 -
On which topic of economic expertise in Scotland, reminds me. Did nobody else on PB notice that Mr Pickles (of all people) came to Fife to hand out lots of dosh for the new Adam Smith heritage centre (or whatever it is) at KirkcaldyStuart_Dickson said:I wonder how David Cameron's "love-bomb" campaign is going?
Whoops-a-Daisy, it's a car crash. Who'd've thunk it?
'Celebrity hairstylist Nicky Clarke says Scots are not educated enough to make political decisions on their own'
- The English media personality claims Scots do not understand economics and need to wise up before voting in the independence referendum in September.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/celebrity-hairstylist-nicky-clarke-scots-3188406#.Uw-fgaDZa6H.facebook
More please Mr Cameron! Much more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-26322255
Nice to know they have heard of the Enlightenment ... even if one of Mrs T's cabinet did, IIRC, edit an edition of Wealth of a Nation with the bits they didn't like excised back in the 1980s.
0 -
It's an interesting point. Ed Milliband may not get a chance even if he is the largest party, the Tories have lost seats and no Tory deal can be done with the Lib Dems.MikeSmithson said:Most people on this thread have read this wrongly
My point is that Cameron would never have got the minority government opportunity because Brown would have sat tight as he had every right to do.
0 -
Personally I always thought we should make a polite effort but basically we'd lost the election and should let the others get together and show what they were like. I thought as a party we'd do much, much better if the LibDems got into bed with the Tories, and it would also be better for the country than a minority Tory government which would do a few populist things and then call another election to get a majority. I still think that was right.
What's surprised me is the lack of clear purpose in the Government. Are they about reducing the deficit, or cutting welfare, or cutiting taxes, or what? As they don't appear to have anything in particular in mind - now a bit of this, then a bit of that - it makes for a diffuse debate. That might be a coalition effect, but Cameron in particular doesn't seem to me to have any real agenda. (I might not like it if he did, so that isn't necessarily a criticism.)0 -
Perhaps only the violent ones are acceptable?Scott_P said:
As we saw from the David Bowie furore, Nats are dead against celebrity outsiders joining the debate.BobaFett said:Stan "The Man" Collymore - the best striker ever to grace a Forest shirt - backs Scottish independence. This one ain't over!
Oh, wait...
0 -
Heard of it, just not experienced it.Carnyx said:
Nice to know they have heard of the Enlightenment ...
0 -
Theuniondivvie said:
Heard of it, just not experienced it.Carnyx said:
Nice to know they have heard of the Enlightenment ...
0 -
Fundamentalist who wants to prevent those who do not share her views from holding high office seeks seat on the General Election debates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-263795030 -
To be fair to Cameron, he has a problem neither Thatcher nor Major had: the need to throw sops to his base to stop it defecting. That is probably why the Government's economic policy seems to vary from week to week. That, and the fact that no one, including themselves, knows what Lib Dem policy on such matters is. Perhaps it too changes from week to week.NickPalmer said:Personally I always thought we should make a polite effort but basically we'd lost the election and should let the others get together and show what they were like. I thought as a party we'd do much, much better if the LibDems got into bed with the Tories, and it would also be better for the country than a minority Tory government which would do a few populist things and then call another election to get a majority. I still think that was right.
What's surprised me is the lack of clear purpose in the Government. Are they about reducing the deficit, or cutting welfare, or cutiting taxes, or what? As they don't appear to have anything in particular in mind - now a bit of this, then a bit of that - it makes for a diffuse debate. That might be a coalition effect, but Cameron in particular doesn't seem to me to have any real agenda. (I might not like it if he did, so that isn't necessarily a criticism.)
0 -
I think that you will find that he was a Leicester City legend!
If he says that independence is a good thing then the argument is over. Yes a nailed on certainty.BobaFett said:Stan "The Man" Collymore - the best striker ever to grace a Forest shirt - backs Scottish independence. This one ain't over!
0 -
I presume that's not intended seriously, but, just in case it is, Cameron's agenda is to govern well. Simple as that. That means sorting out the public finances, sorting out the tax system to help the low-paid and to make the UK attractive for business, sorting out education, sorting out the welfare system (which all sides agree was broken), sorting out public procurement (which was an unmitigated disaster after 13 years of Labour), repairing the broken financial regulation system which Brown created, sweeping away a lot of dross such as ID cards and HIPs, etc etc etc. It's a long list, so of course there's no single gimmick which you can identify as his 'agenda', and of course making progress in one objective may mean making compromises in another. This is about government, not brand-management.NickPalmer said:That might be a coalition effect, but Cameron in particular doesn't seem to me to have any real agenda. (I might not like it if he did, so that isn't necessarily a criticism.)
What's more, the government is doing quite exceptionally well in making progress on all these fronts simultaneously. It's a very tough job, with a starting point of the worst deficit in Europe apart from Greece, the most difficult world economic conditions since the 1930s at least, their hands tied by idiotic concessions made by the last government in Lisbon, and a largely broken governance model wrecked by Blair's sofa-government style and Gordon Brown's spectacular unsuitability for high office. Despite all those difficulties, they are making excellent progress. That's why it's the best government, apart from the very special case of Maggie, in half a century.
Of course, we can't expect all the multiple deep-rooted problems to be sorted out in one term; I said before the 2010 election that I thought it would need three terms. Let's hope the progress doesn't go sharply into reverse in 2015.0 -
The population of Ukraine has dropped by nearly 7 million since 1993:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#Vital_statistics_.5B8.5D.5B9.5D0 -
Carnyx said:
That's an improvement on Ms Lamont - who thinks Scots are genetically incapable of making political decisions (an assertion in her recent debate with Ms Sturgeon)!Stuart_Dickson said:I wonder how David Cameron's "love-bomb" campaign is going?
Whoops-a-Daisy, it's a car crash. Who'd've thunk it?
'Celebrity hairstylist Nicky Clarke says Scots are not educated enough to make political decisions on their own'
- The English media personality claims Scots do not understand economics and need to wise up before voting in the independence referendum in September.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/celebrity-hairstylist-nicky-clarke-scots-3188406#.Uw-fgaDZa6H.facebook
More please Mr Cameron! Much more.For Scottish Labour, this is catastrophic. What remains of the party should have at least insisted that Mr Balls did not just parrot the Osborne script. Have they forgotten everything, and learned nothing, in 50 years? Tory threats to Scotland: the plan that never goes wrong. Yet the shadow chancellor signs up to Mr Osborne's scheme? Voters are liable to wonder where real loyalties lie.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/labour-a-willing-sacrifice-in-osborne-campaign-of-terror.23430293
That's fine. I was never one of those who thought the referendum would be an after-dinner chat. Mr Osborne has done us a service, in fact, by describing where we stand. There can no longer be uncertainty. It's just a shame, for the sentimental among us, that Labour in Scotland has become the first willing casualty in a Tory scorched earth campaign.
And who do they have leading them at this decisive juncture in their history? A new Tom Johnston? A new Willie Ross? A new John Smith? A new Donald Dewar? A new Robin Cook? A new John Reid? Nope. Johann Lamont and Anas Sarwar. They're f****d.
0 -
Some clarification of the Sun's front page from the Telegraph
Patricia Hewitt was forced to apologise after it was revealed that she had called for the age of sexual consent to be lowered to ten.
The document published in the former Labour cabinet minister’s name also called for incest to be legalised.
A National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) press release quoted in The Sun issued in Miss Hewitt’s sole name in Mach 1976 read: “NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over ten can be proved.”
The document, which relates to an NCCL report on sexual law reformed continues: "The report argues that the crime of incest should be abolished.
“In our view, no benefit accrues to anyone by making incest a crime when committed between mutually consenting persons over the age of consent.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html0 -
Oh dear. Sense of humour failure. Prepare for vapourisation.Scott_P said:
As we saw from the David Bowie furore, Nats are dead against celebrity outsiders joining the debate.BobaFett said:Stan "The Man" Collymore - the best striker ever to grace a Forest shirt - backs Scottish independence. This one ain't over!
Oh, wait...
0 -
It does possibly mean that in a hung parliament with few net seat changes that Cameron my have the first choice of forming a minority govt, even if Labour has more seats. If The tories have more votes than Labour then it might even have some credibility, and for the seats to be like that they would have been ahead on votes.Jonathan said:
It's an interesting point. Ed Milliband may not get a chance even if he is the largest party, the Tories have lost seats and no Tory deal can be done with the Lib Dems.MikeSmithson said:Most people on this thread have read this wrongly
My point is that Cameron would never have got the minority government opportunity because Brown would have sat tight as he had every right to do.0 -
It's behind a paywall.SeanT said:Are we not allowed to comment on The Sun's remarkable front page story today?
If true, and no one has yet denied its veracity, it makes things seriously uncomfortable for Hewitt, Harman and Dromey.
0 -
Same argument applies as previously: Dave could remain PM for a few weeks, but as soon as he tried to get any part of his programme for government (even Cameron can't *completely* avoid having one) through the Commons, it would be voted down unless it had LD backing. He would then have to offer his resignation to the Queen.Jonathan said:
It's an interesting point. Ed Milliband may not get a chance even if he is the largest party, the Tories have lost seats and no Tory deal can be done with the Lib Dems.MikeSmithson said:Most people on this thread have read this wrongly
My point is that Cameron would never have got the minority government opportunity because Brown would have sat tight as he had every right to do.
The bit I haven't been able to get a clear answer on is: how long after a GE does the Queen dissolve Parliament rather than asking other leaders to attempt to form an administration? It seems clear that within a month or two of the GE, she will try all possibilities and there will only be a new GE if they all fail. Conversely, if a coalition government falls once it's started governing (I guess 3 months plus) the other party leaders are not given the opportunity to form a government, but rather a new GE is called - presumably because it would not be seen as reflecting the will of the country if a minority coalition party could flip from one large party to the other thereby changing the PM with no new elections. Does anyone know if there is a fixed convention on this element?0 -
Apparently hundred of people have broken into a Spanish enclave in Morocco.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26382589
I'm sure the Spanish will be outraged. Don't these people know you're meant to set up a bullshit customs inspection regime to create gridlock?0 -
Mr. Financier, sounds like a Lannister Law.0
-
You know Scottish politics and you know how inappropriate a comment that is. As well as being very unhelpful for PB.TheWatcher said:
Perhaps only the violent ones are acceptable?Scott_P said:
As we saw from the David Bowie furore, Nats are dead against celebrity outsiders joining the debate.BobaFett said:Stan "The Man" Collymore - the best striker ever to grace a Forest shirt - backs Scottish independence. This one ain't over!
Oh, wait...
0 -
