UK Politics IV

[Werthead]

Well, that's good news :)

[Mathis]

And how would this be different from the last five years?

Realistically, modern politics is in a constant state of electioneering...

While the 24 hour news cycle has made constant electioneering more important than before, comparing a hung parliament just coming out of recession to a majority party government (with at least four years to work with) is ridiculous.

As for the 'tough decisions', by and large the argument isn't over those anyway: the Tories and Labour broadly agree on them.

And if either of them had a majority and time to work with, then it wouldn't be such a problem.

The markets are worried only because this is a rarity in a UK context. That doesn't imply that coalitions are inherently bad, weak, or unstable, even in the UK. It just means that the markets don't have the amount of information they'd like.

You said it; because this is a rarity in the UK it doesn't bear comparison with countries where coalitions are the norm. A Unique Snowflake perhaps ;) .

And I never said that coalition governments are inherently unstable.

[mormont]

While the 24 hour news cycle has made constant electioneering more important than before, comparing a hung parliament just coming out of recession to a majority party government (with at least four years to work with) is ridiculous.

This doesn't actually answer the point, though, it just dismisses it.

One of the defining characteristics (and many said one of the fatal flaws) of Labour under Tony Blair was a determination to govern as if on a constant election footing. Conversely, as I've said, there's good reason to suppose that it wouldn't necessarily be in the interests of the Opposition to force an early election in the event of a hung parliament. Everyone assumes it would, but so far as I can see the only reason they have for that is that this is what happened in 1974. But if Labour lose this time, for example, it's unlikely they'll want to face the electorate again for a good while. They will probably prefer to let the Tories take the flak for spending cuts while they regroup.

A certain degree of vulnerability in a government working with a hung parliament is perhaps inevitable, in that some of their bills may be defeated - but that happens with a small majority anyway. It's not unique to coalition government or even minority governments. And whatever the markets think, there's a significant group of the voting public that appear to believe that this would be no bad thing. I, for one, like the idea that a government should have to win the argument rather than just pass whatever laws it wants to. I understand that the markets don't like that idea, because it makes things less predictable, but I guarantee they'll learn to live with it if that's what happens.

And if either of them had a majority and time to work with, then it wouldn't be such a problem.

This makes little sense as a response to my point. Why would a majority and time to work with be required to make sure something is not a problem, if it's not a problem to begin with? If Labour and the Tories mostly agree on the scale of spending cuts, why would either of them need a whopping majority to push through something on which they both agree?

You said it; because this is a rarity in the UK it doesn't bear comparison with countries where coalitions are the norm. A Unique Snowflake perhaps .

But this is exactly why I have pointed out that coalitions are successful in the devolved governments - which shows that this is not a cultural issue specific to the UK, but merely a consequence of the electoral system. It's not that the British people uniquely dislike or can't handle coalition, it's just that their electoral system hasn't thrown many up over the years. Nonetheless, as I pointed out above, opinion polls suggest that a significant proportion of them reckon that they wouldn't mind the idea this time around.

And I never said that coalition governments are inherently unstable.

You appeared to be saying that they were so in a UK context at least, by suggesting that the 'inevitable' consequence of a coalition would be a weak government and an early election. If that wasn't what you meant to imply, apologies. :)

[john]

Lib Dems finally joining modern politics by leaving documents lying around.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/21/nick-clegg-tv-debate-notes

Clegg reacted in a lighthearted manner to the discovery of the dossier, telling a press conference this morning: "I'm glad to see my top team is preparing for government by developing the habit of leaving secret dossiers in the back of cabs.

See he's not a new revolution in public figures. He's just another mindless puppet controlled by his PR men!

[Hereward]

Hereward, you know I love you. But you know I'm not going to let that lie. :kiss:

The fact that the SNP has survived for 'nakedly political reasons' in actual fact a very good argument against Mathis' worries about an 'inevitable' early election, which also to some extent underlies the market's jitters. Just because a government doesn't have a majority, doesn't mean their opponents are all keen to take the first opportunity to have a shot at them. Yes, the cases are not necessarily the same, but I can easily imagine scenarios where a minority UK government could survive for 'nakedly political reasons'.

I expressed myself poorly. I accept that there are nakedly political reasons for a minority government to be allowed to continue in the UK, most notably so that it can take the balme for horrendous public sector cuts that everyone knows will be needed but no-one wants to take the blame for. However, I stand by my assertion that the SNP example is not a good one, because of the combination of it being sheltered from economic realities and the naked politics, i.e. the SNP survives because it doesn't have to take difficult decisions and because it is in the interests of the other parties. If more was at stake and the decisions it was taking were potentially devastating, it would lose a key vote very quickly. Its opponents couldn't be seen to be sitting on their hands while public services were slashed, or banks bailed out, rather than goodies being distributed.

[mormont]

However, I stand by my assertion that the SNP example is not a good one, because of the combination of it being sheltered from economic realities and the naked politics, i.e. the SNP survives because it doesn't have to take difficult decisions and because it is in the interests of the other parties.

From the point of view of someone who sees this stuff at close range, I can't completely agree with either point.

To take the second first, if Labour thought they had an outside chance of taking back control of the Scottish Parliament, most of them would do it in a second - not least because of the instinctual bone-deep loathing they have of the SNP generally and Alex Salmond in particular. Try telling a Scottish Labour politician it's 'in the interests' of his party for the SNP administration to survive, and you have an even chance of seeing a man actually froth at the mouth. They had to swallow sharing power with the Lib Dems, and had enough complaints about that: to be out of power in Scotland altogether is an offence against the natural order for them.

I'll admit there have been times when Labour would not have welcomed an election in Scotland, but the crucial point is that Labour can't topple the SNP alone, and the SNP know it. They have played it carefully, therefore, making sure that it is never in the interests of all their opponents at once to force the issue. (Largely they've done this by bribing the Tories to abstain on issues that might become issues of confidence.) Whatever one's views on this, the point is that the SNP administration's survival has not been an issue in which they've been passive beneficiaries of the weakness of the other parties, but an active political process.

As for the first, it's true to some extent that the funding of the Scottish Government via block grant has meant that the SNP haven't had to take difficult macroeconomic decisions (and that they have a ready-made scapegoat for difficult microeconomic funding choices, like cancelling transport projects). But within the context of the devolved settlement, they've had to take as many difficult decisions as any administration before them, and frankly there is a lot at stake from a voters' point of view. I for one am daily glad neither Labour nor the Tories will be implementing their education policies north of the Border, because I would regard those as devastating. And of course the converse is true, that their limited powers means they themselves have to sit on their hands sometimes, a situation that can be used against them by their opponents.

In any case, the Scottish Government will have to slash public services shortly so we'll see how that plays out. And indeed we may see how a hung UK parliament plays out before that. :)

[Horza]

Vicious Hoodie Biological Missile Attack Fails To Damage Invincible Cameron

... or at least that's the Mail's headline.

[MinDonner]

The first egging of the election! Awesome Capital!

[Astra]

The first egging of the election! Awesome Capital!

The same 16-18 year yobs representative, who didn't work one full day in his life, has no values, no respect for anyone besides himself. The same type who can tell a teacher in a college fuck off and come later on every single lesson, they know they will pass all tests anyway. They have no fear of police or punishment for an act like that :shocked:

[Slick Mongoose]

:commie:

[mormont]

The first egging of the election! Awesome Capital!

I love that the BBC report has a photo of the egg.

[Daeric]

I love that the BBC report has a photo of the egg.

Top notch reporting that is, so far hes had a chicken costume follow him around and now an egg, I wonder if anyone if so going to take it a step futher and do something with a rooster :P

[Hereward]

Mr Clarke said the failure of the Labour government to deal with a crisis in the public finances in the 1970s was partly due to its lack of a big Commons majority which forced it to rely on the Liberals in the Lib/Lab pact - a state of affairs which he said was a "farce and fiasco".

The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg said Mr Clarke's comments were very strong and seemingly designed to jog the memory of older voters. However, she said they reflected the real uncertainty caused by the state of the polls and how the parties should respond to them.

Laura Kuenssberg can fuck right off.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Laura Kuenssberg can fuck right off.

*lounges on Hereward's lawn*

Well I don't remember that :smug:

[mormont]

It's getting nasty now... all the Tory papers have this morning launched a full-frontal assault on Clegg. It's mostly pretty trumped-up stuff (note how the Mail have altered what he actually said, in particular - 'a more insidious cross to bear' has unapologetically been changed to 'a greater cross to bear', which is completely different) but it's all the nastier for that.

One suspects his greatest crime for Daily Mail readers is down the page a bit:

Mr Clegg, who has a Spanish wife, a Dutch mother and a Russian grandparent, began his career as a Brussels bureaucrat and moved to Westminster after a spell as a Euro MP.

It's interesting to see the vitriol aimed at the Lib Dems for a change, but this is all too fucking typical of the Tory press during an election. Shameless bastards. :tantrum:

[Usotsuki]

But obviously shameless bastards - the sheer volume and variety of the attacks tells of desperation as much as strategy.

Nick Clegg has reservations about the permanent alliance with the US? Shocking, I wonder if I can vote for his party twice?

[MinDonner]

But... but... he has relatives from EUROPE! Surely the traitorous scum plans to sell us off to Brussels!

[Horza]

Oi, Britonists. You've got a ridiculous amount of national newspapers and some of them seem redundant - is there any reason why the Sun and the Mail both exist, or for that matter the Gruaniad and the Indy?

[Lyanna Stark]

The attacks on Nick Clegg just feel totally far fetched and it feels like the Tories especially are flailing to find something to pin down on him. Are people really stupid enough to fall for stuff like this? (I don't count Daily Mail readers in "people" as they are probably some sort of frothing at the mouth aliens).

I am a little bit confused.

How can your plight be so difficult if immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh have families with up to 10 kids, not working and have good houses from council?

I beg your pardon?

We're not talking about the whole "OMG AN IMMIGRANT STOLE MY COUNCIL HOUSE AND I REALLY NEED IT COZ I CAN'T PAY FOR MY NEW TRACKSUIT WIF MY BENEFIT" sort of problem here, we're talking about purchasing a house.

Clear enough or still confused?

For the record, my husband's sister is on the dole, got a council flat and £150 towards furniture, plus the removal men paid for. And she's white as snow, so shove your racism where the sun don't shine. What you should focus on is people in general abusing the system, which I might add has nothing to do with nationality or skin colour as everyone I know who is clearly abusing the system is white British. And has exactly 0 children too, I might add.

So clearly kids doesn't mean automatic council house, since I have one and she doesn't. We actually sent in an application for a council house mostly since private renting is really uncertain, but it's virtually impossible here to get one, since we both have incomes and aren't seen as "needy" enough I guess. Oh and guess what? How "foreign" you are doesn't give you any points on the housing list. Or I would have got some, since I am foreign.

And since I uphold a job here, feel free to blame me for stealing yours, too. I relished doing it.

[MinDonner]

Tsk. The minutae of class distinctions is what gets us through the day. But we couldn't possibly expect a mere foreigner to understand. :hat: (<--- pretend this is a top hat)

(ETA: @Horza)