Jump to content

   

UK Politics


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
117 replies to this topic

OFFLINE   Cyril Washbrook #81

  • Retired Admin

  • 9,531 posts since
  • November 2006

Posted 07 May 2010 - 04:32 PM

Some of the seat changes have been utterly bizarre, as Jeremy Vine has just been dissecting. There has currently been a 1.4% swing from the Lib Dems to the Tories, but the individual seat swings have been all over the shop, with huge regional and seat-to-seat variation.

Lembit Opik, one of the Lib Dems' more high-profile members, had a winning margin at the 2005 poll of over 7,000 votes (24 points) in Montgomeryshire (Wales), but he's managed to lose his seat to the Tories' Glyn Davies by more than 1,000. But then in the constituency of Wells (south-west), a 3,000 vote margin for the Tories' David Heathcoat-Amory has turned into an 800 vote margin in favour of the Lib Dems' Tessa Munt.

OFFLINE   TV Head #82

  • 18,615 posts since
  • January 2006

Posted 07 May 2010 - 06:21 PM

///


I rarely pay too much attention to UK politics, but their polices don't align with my views and while Gordon is hardly camera friendly he has been given a bad wrap IMO. Blair tailed it with the first sign of trouble and left him with a mess to clean up.

OFFLINE   bacco007 #83

  • Deputy Chief Administrator

  • 9,183 posts since
  • February 2005

Posted 07 May 2010 - 06:43 PM

Lembit Opik, one of the Lib Dems' more high-profile members


Look what happens when you dump the Cheeky Girls ;)

I saw a bit of Sky News today, Adam Boulton was interviewing Nick Griffin (BNP) in Barking - I had a small chuckle to myself

OFFLINE   Cyril Washbrook #84

  • Retired Admin

  • 9,531 posts since
  • November 2006

Posted 07 May 2010 - 07:32 PM

Hung parliament is now official. The structure of this parliament means that whoever gets into power from now on, Britain is likely to have another election in the very near future: if not this year, then next year. Those on Twitter are currently mulling whether the favoured hash tag for the next poll should be #ge2011 or #ge2010b. As Nick Robinson points out, the most structurally stable majority would be created by some sort of agreement between the Tories and the Lib Dems, but such an agreement would naturally entail political dilemmas for both sides. Labour and the Lib Dems would not reach a majority of seats, and would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to find the additional members from the minor parties, and even if they could, such a government would struggle to last out more than a couple of weeks.

OFFLINE   Cyril Washbrook #85

  • Retired Admin

  • 9,531 posts since
  • November 2006

Posted 07 May 2010 - 07:46 PM

Nick Clegg has just stated that it's now up to the Tories to reach out to seek partners for government. He's also emphasised the importance of electoral reform. This reinforces his previously stated stance, which is that the party with the most votes and the most seats should have the first opportunity to form government.

OFFLINE   Moe #86

  • 8,402 posts since
  • August 2004

Posted 07 May 2010 - 09:29 PM

Labour seem to essentially be offering the Australian system, AV for the Commons and Proportional for the house of Lords. You might need to combine that with a genuine redistribution if you want to undo the gerrymandering of the electorates.

The Torys have the most to lose with AC, currently when there's a three way contest, the Lib Dems and Labour eat each others vote, allowing the Conservatives to fall over the line. With AV, you'd almost certainly see preference flows between the Lib Dems and Labour, with only minor leakage to the Torys. You of course see this in Australia too, the Liberals don't have much on the close right of them, with the 4% tops Family First/CDP votes roughly all that flows towards them, with the very strong Green to Labor flow. That means in order for AV to result in a win for the Conservatives, that requires a much stronger primary vote for them.

I do however think proportional will help the Conservatives in the other nations. As the coverage on the BBC has pointed out a lot, besides some gains in Wales, the Conservatives are all but non existent up north.

OFFLINE   bacco007 #87

  • Deputy Chief Administrator

  • 9,183 posts since
  • February 2005

Posted 08 May 2010 - 01:12 PM

Hung parliament is now official. The structure of this parliament means that whoever gets into power from now on, Britain is likely to have another election in the very near future: if not this year, then next year. Those on Twitter are currently mulling whether the favoured hash tag for the next poll should be #ge2011 or #ge2010b. As Nick Robinson points out, the most structurally stable majority would be created by some sort of agreement between the Tories and the Lib Dems, but such an agreement would naturally entail political dilemmas for both sides. Labour and the Lib Dems would not reach a majority of seats, and would find it extremely difficult if not impossible to find the additional members from the minor parties, and even if they could, such a government would struggle to last out more than a couple of weeks.


I sat through the somewhat tedious (yet interesting) article on the BBC website about where to from here - 1974 seems to be the guide of what may or may not happen.

I dont see what going to an election later this year will achieve, unless there is a significant change in the makeup of candidates it will only serve to reaffirm the fact that no majority can be found. I would be more worried about the outcry from people not being able to vote - I dont think we have heard the end of it...

(hehe) http://www.guardian....010-front-pages

OFFLINE   Racer25 #88

  • News Contributor

  • 4,497 posts since
  • September 2008

Posted 11 May 2010 - 02:07 PM

So in order to further discussions with the Lib Dems, Brown has decided to step aside as leader for Labour. Could anyone see this coming? And does it serve the party well going forward?

OFFLINE   tamago_otoko #89

  • Retired Senior Moderator

  • 5,291 posts since
  • August 2007

Posted 11 May 2010 - 04:16 PM

I thought Brown would be too arrogant to ever do that, so it is surprising. I get the feeling either he was tapped on the shoulder by his party mates and "asked" to step aside, or Nick Clegg point-blank refused to negotiate to keep Brown as PM.

Either way, I think he was living on borrowed time after the election results. Even though the results weren't as bad as they could have been, he did fail the first and only test of his leadership quite convincingly
tamago_otoko
Media Spy Moderator
tamago_otoko@mediaspy.org

OFFLINE   TGIF #90

  • 11,470 posts since
  • October 2006

Posted 11 May 2010 - 07:50 PM

I understand that there was building pressure for him to resign but either way he's done the right thing - and probably better to be jumped, and look vaguely noble, than be pushed.

Brown being gone means that it's probably going to be a lot easier for the Lib Dems to negotiate a deal (wasn't it one of Clegg's conditions for a coalition anyway?).

OFFLINE   C92 #91

  • 1,673 posts since
  • August 2008

Posted 11 May 2010 - 11:00 PM

Looking forward to see who the next leader for Labour is. Very exciting UK is getting a new PM!
I. Like. That.

OFFLINE   dbrmuz #92

  • 6,539 posts since
  • June 2009

Posted 12 May 2010 - 08:27 AM

Looking forward to see who the next leader for Labour is. Very exciting UK is getting a new PM!


And that Prime Minister is David Cameron.
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong

OFFLINE   Cyril Washbrook #93

  • Retired Admin

  • 9,531 posts since
  • November 2006

Posted 13 May 2010 - 09:05 PM

Discussion of what the coalition means for media policy.

The emergence of a new coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in Britain has created new uncertainty about the direction of the country's media policy, with common policy positions juxtaposed against problematic - and as yet unresolved - differences.

http://www.mediaspy....t-media-policy/

OFFLINE   TV Head #94

  • 18,615 posts since
  • January 2006

Posted 14 May 2010 - 03:47 PM

I don't see how two parties with such massive ideological differences can really work together to run the country for long.

OFFLINE   Cyril Washbrook #95

  • Retired Admin

  • 9,531 posts since
  • November 2006

Posted 14 May 2010 - 05:11 PM

I don't see how two parties with such massive ideological differences can really work together to run the country for long.

I don't doubt that there are differences, but the notion that there's no ideological cohesion there seems to me to rely on the view that the Conservatives are hybridised Thatcherite/Traditionalist demons and that the Lib Dems are rampaging social democrats. In many crucial areas, the Lib Dems and Conservatives are absolutely lock-step, and often united against Labour. Labour and the Lib Dems are poles apart on issues such as civil liberties, where the Tories are by a country mile more progressive and liberal than the allegedly "centre-left" Labour. Labour has in fact enacted (or attempted to enact) some of the most appalling paternalist and illiberal policies that Britain has seen over the last few decades.

Both the Lib Dems and the Tories are committed to progressive action on climate change, and the Tories have committed to increasing funding for health despite spending cuts elsewhere. We've already seen substantive compromises made by both sides on important areas such as tax policy, which was always going to be a potentially problematic area. Of course there will be major areas of difference, and Vince Cable is probably running at very short odds to resign in the near future, but differences are going to materialise whenever you get an ex post facto coalition (as opposed to one where the agenda was agreed upon beforehand). And to be honest, I think this coalition is going to be a lot more stable than a Labour-Lib Dem one would have been.

OFFLINE   Aurora #96

  • 2012 NRL Tipping Champion

  • 6,054 posts since
  • February 2009

Posted 14 May 2010 - 09:49 PM

I don't see how two parties with such massive ideological differences can really work together to run the country for long.

Well Zimbabawe is still going.

Please note: any comments in posts made by myself are mine only and may apply only to the specific conditions and situations of the time of posting. Any opinions or comments expressed do not represent any organisation(s) which may have previously been or may currently be affiliated with myself in any way.


OFFLINE   Moe #97

  • 8,402 posts since
  • August 2004

Posted 14 May 2010 - 09:53 PM

Zimbabwe probably isn't the best example. One I use is the CDU/SPD super-coalition in Germany, which would be almost the equivalent of a Labor-Conservative coalition. It worked well enough. The things said about a European style of politics and cooperation rings true as the idea, there is a lot of demonstration of coalitions of unlikely partners working well.

OFFLINE   Cyril Washbrook #98

  • Retired Admin

  • 9,531 posts since
  • November 2006

Posted 21 May 2010 - 01:24 AM

More on the coalition's media policy, subsequent to the release of the government's legislative programme. The full programme is available here.

Britain's coalition government has shed light on its intentions with respect to media policy, with the release today of its 35-page legislative programme.

While touching relatively lightly on media policy, the outline is the first indication of what the government - formed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats - is likely to prioritise.

http://www.mediaspy....alition-agenda/

OFFLINE   Cyril Washbrook #99

  • Retired Admin

  • 9,531 posts since
  • November 2006

Posted 23 May 2010 - 10:37 AM

And to continue this media policy mini-series:

Britain's Conservatives are positioning themselves to take a conciliatory line toward the BBC, with one of its ministers with responsibility for media policy indicating that the coalition government would not be seeking a confrontation on contentious issues.

http://www.mediaspy....promise-on-bbc/

OFFLINE   Cyril Washbrook #100

  • Retired Admin

  • 9,531 posts since
  • November 2006

Posted 28 May 2010 - 03:58 PM

The BBC's television debate programme Question Time has hit out at the UK Government, accusing it of "political interference" by demanding that the high-profile Labour strategist Alastair Campbell be pulled from last night's edition.

http://www.mediaspy....l-interference/