Jump to content

Brown out - Labour in?


disgusted
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm

 

Well now, interesting....

 

Mr Brown announced his intention to quit in a statement in Downing St in which he also said his party was to start formal talks with the Lib Dems.

 

Clegg always said he wouldn't work with Brown if the Tories got more votes, although he would work with Labour......

 

He said he had no desire to stay in his position longer than was needed to form a stable government, and that he would ask the Labour Party to set in form the process of a leadership contest.

 

He said it could be in the interests of the country to form a "progressive" government - possibly in coalition with the Lib Dems - the UK's third largest party.

 

It emerged earlier that the Lib Dem negotiating team, who have held days of talks with the Conservatives, had also met senior Labour figures in private.

 

 

They've used the Tories to force Brown out, wait for an 11th hour deal with Labour now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... and the irony is, in their mad scramble for "power"; their self interest blinds them to the trap that awaits them at the next election - as whoever takes power now, will be blamed for the pain to come. All Labour had to do was go into opposition and merely curb any exesses of pain inflicted by a Tory-Lib Gov; but now we'll witness the sordid sight of a fight for the Labour Leadership (and the PMs job), between a collection of boy no-marks. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More fudge anyone!

 

 

Looks like we are in for one hell of a ride, more indicisions, nothing definite, more money to be wasted, sounds like Warrington Borough Council, but not as bad?

 

Let's do away with first past the post, let's have the party with the most votes to run the country, simples!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree with everything that has been said so far from Fatshaft and Obs (now there's a first :lol: )

 

Noticed in the news report that you posted Fats that it also says

 

If Labour and the Lib Dems joined forces, they would still not have an overall majority.

 

With the support of the Northern Irish SDLP, one Alliance MP, and nationalists from Scotland and Wales they would reach 328, rising to 338 if the DUP, the independent unionist and the new Green MP joined them.

 

So we could finish up with a right mish-mash of people, opinions and ideas in so called 'group' leadership... all going round in circles, arguing and getting no where productive :shock:

 

.... a bit like on this forum at times :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion we need the Lib-Lab pact to go ahead so that the whole carbuncle will be lanced ASAP :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to laugh at the latest Tory offer to the Libs - a referendum on AV PR - garanteed to be rejected by the people, once they realise it will produce hung parliaments on a regular basis! Come on Dave, seize the reins and get on with it - declare a minority Gov and dare the rest to vote against your Queen's speech - it's called being decisive! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Wireless. If Labour and the Lib Dems form a coalition, they will be condemned by all right-thinking people, whatever their political leanings.

For those who support PR, surely you can see that if we have any form of PR we will be in this sort of situation all the time. Reduced to the level of Greece!

There is only one form of PR that would work and I fancy the Lib Dems would not support it because it would involve having just two parties!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry gents, but your not alone in this mistaken view; even experienced political comentators on the BBC (who should know better), are repeating this inaccuracy ad nauseam. The reality is. in a parliamentary system, that in order to govern and get your program (Queen's Speech) agreed; you have to command a majority of ALL the votes in parliament. Now it is possible (if he has the bottle); for David Cameron to state publicly, that "talks" have failed to secure any agreement, and proceed to the stage of opening parliament with a Queen's Speech, calling the bluff of the other Parties and daring them to vote it down, thus embarrassing the Monarch etc. They could then proceed to govern on a bill by bill basis; but I'm afraid "the markets" wouldn't view this state of affairs as "stable" government. However, it would provide them with a brief period to examine "the books"; and declare that our economic situation is even worse than even they suspected, and that the kind of draconian austerity measures required need to be agreed by the electorate (thus passing the ball back to us!). Now the electorate are not noted for their masocism, so I'm not sure they'd be grown up enough to vote for a "blood, sweat and tears" manifesto; thus yet another fudge and possibly the election of "softer" Parties in another election in October? :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and another thing!

 

which ever party the Lib Dem decide to have a coalition with, who is to say that they will not fall out again over policy's and then decide to back the opposition party?... it is all very confusing!

 

The sooner we have another election the better and hopefully it will be more decisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry gents, but your not alone in this mistaken view; even experienced political comentators on the BBC (who should know better), are repeating this inaccuracy ad nauseam. The reality is. in a parliamentary system, that in order to govern and get your program (Queen's Speech) agreed; you have to command a majority of ALL the votes in parliament. Now it is possible (if he has the bottle); for David Cameron to state publicly, that "talks" have failed to secure any agreement, and proceed to the stage of opening parliament with a Queen's Speech, calling the bluff of the other Parties and daring them to vote it down, thus embarrassing the Monarch etc. They could then proceed to govern on a bill by bill basis; but I'm afraid "the markets" wouldn't view this state of affairs as "stable" government. However, it would provide them with a brief period to examine "the books"; and declare that our economic situation is even worse than even they suspected, and that the kind of draconian austerity measures required need to be agreed by the electorate (thus passing the ball back to us!). Now the electorate are not noted for their masocism, so I'm not sure they'd be grown up enough to vote for a "blood, sweat and tears" manifesto; thus yet another fudge and possibly the election of "softer" Parties in another election in October? :shock:

 

Indeed, but i'm making a moral argument, not a constitutional one.Brown took over from Blair without an election.There was a precedent with John Major so it was deemed acceptable.I don't think the Labour Party doing it again after losing 100 seats would wash with the public.We can't have a government of stable national unity on that basis without it imploding very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No morality involved - it's a simple numbers game: Tories 12million votes: Lab 10million: Libs 5million: 17million trumps 10million OR 15million trumps 12 million. Either way this pans out - the markets ain't going to be too happy with a fudge Government - so I guess we'll be back to the ballot boxes by October. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, but i'm making a moral argument, not a constitutional one.Brown took over from Blair without an election.There was a precedent with John Major so it was deemed acceptable.I don't think the Labour Party doing it again after losing 100 seats would wash with the public.We can't have a government of stable national unity on that basis without it imploding very quickly.

 

What moral argument? We don't vote for a PM, we vote for a party (generally) or a particular candidate in the constituency (occassionally, but usually it's the party).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll now have a referendum on PR - presumably Labour and Tories will campaign against it, leaving the LibDems to support it (as their only chance of continueing in existence) - now following this example of what PR will produce on a regular basis (ie: hung parliaments) - will the great British electorate vote for it?! :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If labour and liberals get together I can see people being ferried from their sick-beds; holidays and what have you, just to vote on contentious issues.

 

Thought that had been confined to history.

 

Happy days (but for whom)

Sounds like Warrington Council's AGM on Monday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll now have a referendum on PR - presumably Labour and Tories will campaign against it, leaving the LibDems to support it (as their only chance of continueing in existence) - now following this example of what PR will produce on a regular basis (ie: hung parliaments) - will the great British electorate vote for it?! :?

 

Well not if Murdoch's empire keep spinning it the way they are, that it's a compromise shambles, rather than an end to confrontational politics designed to gain decision by consensus rather than doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...