Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
:murray: WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! :murray:

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
UK Election Fever; A sympton of Election Gonorrhea
Topic Started: Apr 16 2010, 02:17 PM (794 Views)
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
So...anyone catch last nights stage managed verbal fisticuffs?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gruenberg
Member Avatar
aka Kleinschnauzer
[ *  *  * ]
I thought it was a bit boring, really. Not exactly a letdown, but they didn't get anywhere near as sharp as during PMQs, which makes me think the whole thing will really only benefit the Lib Dems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
Yes, it wasn't as exciting as it should have been - I think in part due to this being perhaps the worst election of the past 20 years to do it with. Clegg, Cameron and Brown aren't exactly renowned parliamentarians and debaters - if it had taken place during the 2001 election, we would have had a far better shew (Ashdown and Blair being good parliamentarian, and Hague, for all his faults, perhaps being the best parliamentarian of the past 50 years)

Clegg definately benifitted and oratorially came off best, but he was the least statesmanlike in appearance and his credibility was somewhat shattered with me when he started talking about immigration as he was clearly misinformed (Britain only ever had exit stamps for around 5% of visas, and Work Permits only allow to work for a particular job), and IMHO came off as the most transparent (I did kind of want to smack him a bit). However, I think his perceived victory in the eyes of the media will cause problems in the future, as I can't see anything other then the other's ganging up on him, especially with regards to foreign policy.

Cameron, appearance wise, was the most statesmanlike, but appeared more nervous and shifty eyed then the other two, but his willingness to admit culpability struck me as a daring move - it played well to me, but on the flip side it reminded people of some things that really the Tories should have tried to have kept forgotten. Also called the Prime Minister "Gordon" first (okay, I appreciate this is what the parties agreed as how they should address one another)... it just seemed wrong (no matter what you think of him, he is the sodding PM!)

Brown didn't appear statemanlike (hardly his fault - he is an odd shape), but played the experience card very well. However, he was automatically at a disadvantage because it is impossible for labour to introduce new legislation that seeks to further the whole "fairness" stuff without people wondering "why didn't you do that in the past 13 years?". He was also dull, but the best informed (though being PM he does have an unfair advantage with that), yet focussed to much on statistics. The least transparent of the three, but he shouldn't have tried to joke, and at times he just looked smarmy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iron Felix
Member Avatar
Time Magazine's Person of the Year
Admin
Nick Clegg nearly as popular as Winston Churchill

Really?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
I doubt it somehow. Churchill's popularity is fading amongst certain sectors of the community (who feel that leading our country during the darkest time our country has seen) is not politically correct or some such, but not to that extent
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
King of California
Admin
It's just a debate bounce, like we often have in the U.S.; it's not going to hold. At some point the novelty will wear off.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
Yeah, Clegg's rather likely to be savaged in the next round of debates (Foreign Policy) largely because the Tories and Labour pretty much agree on everything foreign policy wise. Furthermore, the Lib Dems European policy isn't particularly popular in the UK
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
Well, Fleet streets reaction was rather...interesting today. I don't think two papers agreed on who won the foreign policy debate.

On another note, the Bloodyminded Nazi Prats are running a candidate in our area (not that they'll win)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
King of California
Admin
Is there anyplace where I can view the debate online? I know ITV posted the last one on YouTube, but I don't see the second one anywhere, and the hell if I was going to stay up till 3 a.m. just to see it on Fox. :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
King of California
Admin
So what happens if the Lib Dems come in second? Will Clegg be the Leader of the Opposition, or will Labor still be able to strike a deal to take his place? Could the Lib Dems eclipse Labor just as Labor eclipsed them during WWII (or whenever it was)?

At the very least, will there be fewer photo-ops at the homes of voters the prime minister just insulted?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
qumkent
Member Avatar
NOT AN AO MEMBER!
[ *  *  * ]
I'm not sure the Tories will get enough seats to form a government, so it's far more likely that a Lib-Lab coalition will be formed, Labour will still have the most seats of the two (indeed of all three, just not an overall majority) and the Libs will refuse to go in to government with Labour unless Brown isn't Prime Minister, so the Labour party will probably dump him like hot shit and put some "fresh" face in his place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
I think the Lib -Dems will in many ways be forced to form a coalition with whoever wins - a labour-lib coalition would be (IMHO opinion, rightly) a travesty of democracy that the most popular party both popular vote wise and seats wise (as the Tories are likely to be), undermining most of the lib-dem's support in future elections - the British won't exactly stand for their government being decided in a back room vote against they're wishes. The sensible thing would of course be a a Con-Lab coalition, but on both sides supporters being blinded by prejudices based upon perceived ideological differences based upon policies of 30 years ago (we all know labour supporters who won't vote conservative because of what Thatcher did, and conservative supporters who hate Labour based upon Foot's very socialist stand during the same period) then the actual lack of policy differences now (minor, really. Cameron's One Nation, and Brown, whilst left of Blair, is still "New" Labour - ideals are pretty much the same but with a different approach to...well..approach).

If the situation was different parties winning the popular vote, then the Lib-Dems would have the luxury of choice without undermining it's credentials...but with that being excedingly unlikely, there views may have to take a back seat in order to not be viewed as anti-democracy...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
qumkent
Member Avatar
NOT AN AO MEMBER!
[ *  *  * ]
Cobdenia,Apr 30 2010
08:56 AM
I think the Lib -Dems will in many ways be forced to form a coalition with whoever wins - a labour-lib coalition would be (IMHO opinion, rightly) a travesty of democracy that the most popular party both popular vote wise and seats wise (as the Tories are likely to be), undermining most of the lib-dem's support in future elections - the British won't exactly stand for their government being decided in a back room vote against they're wishes. The sensible thing would of course be a a Con-Lab coalition, but on both sides supporters being blinded by prejudices based upon perceived ideological differences based upon policies of 30 years ago (we all know labour supporters who won't vote conservative because of what Thatcher did, and conservative supporters who hate Labour based upon Foot's very socialist stand during the same period) then the actual lack of policy differences now (minor, really. Cameron's One Nation, and Brown, whilst left of Blair, is still "New" Labour - ideals are pretty much the same but with a different approach to...well..approach).

If the situation was different parties winning the popular vote, then the Lib-Dems would have the luxury of choice without undermining it's credentials...but with that being excedingly unlikely, there views may have to take a back seat in order to not be viewed as anti-democracy...



The British electoral system isn't terribly democratic anyway though, so I'm not sure the Lib-dems will suffer the ignominy of being accused of undermining democracy whoever they decide to go in to coalition with.

I must say though, I definitely see a difference between Clegg and Brown on the one hand and Cameron on the other, it's not just about ancient history, the Conservatives are proposing to so radically reduce the role of the state in Britain that Thatcher would plotz. Big Society=No Society despite Cameron's protestations to the contrary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cobdenia
Member Avatar
1953 is the new 1932 for 2008
[ *  *  * ]
Zanjan,Apr 30 2010
09:29 AM
Cobdenia,Apr 30 2010
08:56 AM
I think the Lib -Dems will in many ways be forced to form a coalition with whoever wins - a labour-lib coalition would be (IMHO opinion, rightly) a travesty of democracy that the most popular party both popular vote wise and seats wise (as the Tories are likely to be), undermining most of the lib-dem's support in future elections - the British won't exactly stand for their government being decided in a back room vote against they're wishes. The sensible thing would of course be a a Con-Lab coalition, but on both sides supporters being blinded by prejudices based upon perceived ideological differences based upon policies of 30 years ago (we all know labour supporters who won't vote conservative because of what Thatcher did, and conservative supporters who hate Labour based upon Foot's very socialist stand during the same period) then the actual lack of policy differences now (minor, really. Cameron's One Nation, and Brown, whilst left of Blair, is still "New" Labour - ideals are pretty much the same but with a different approach to...well..approach).

If the situation was different parties winning the popular vote, then the Lib-Dems would have the luxury of choice without undermining it's credentials...but with that being excedingly unlikely, there views may have to take a back seat in order to not be viewed as anti-democracy...



The British electoral system isn't terribly democratic anyway though, so I'm not sure the Lib-dems will suffer the ignominy of being accused of undermining democracy whoever they decide to go in to coalition with.

I must say though, I definitely see a difference between Clegg and Brown on the one hand and Cameron on the other, it's not just about ancient history, the Conservatives are proposing to so radically reduce the role of the state in Britain that Thatcher would plotz. Big Society=No Society despite Cameron's protestations to the contrary.

The problem is the difference between theory and practice. In theory, the FPTP system is not very democratic and PR is very democratic, in practice the opposite is true. The former forces the major parties to the centre - the position where the majority of the country is and pretty much the "average" political view, whereas PR is centrifugal, in that it draws politics away from the centre as the centre left forms coalitions with parties further to the left and the centre right with parties further to the right (exception: Ireland - the centrist party is the kingmaker), leading the shifts of left to right rather then centre left and centre right, which has other problems of political stability as well as not refelcting the beliefs of the population. I have also a fear that in the long run PR in Britain would force a drastic rightward shift.

I also, personally, think that the Liberal-Democrats would stand a far greater chance in future elections as the main opposition party rather than as part of a coalition - partly for the reasons I outlined above, and partly because the lib dems have in many ways had the luxury of being able to make promises it's very unlikely it will ever have to keep whilst still being taken seriously, whereas a spell as the main opposition with a real prospect of gaining power at the end would ensure they come under much more scutiny then they have been in the past, this election excepted, and lead to a more coherent policy strategy which would benefit the lib dems and heighten their chances of acheiving government and allow them to continue as a major party. If they are a mere kingmaker, such a small victory may very well end up being Pyrrhic.

Also, to stop this from doing so terribly un-British and turn into a heated debate: lolcleggz

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
qumkent
Member Avatar
NOT AN AO MEMBER!
[ *  *  * ]
But in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria the major centre left parties are in coalition with their right wing counterparts, and Ireland doesn''t really have any left wing parties at all, except maybe one socialist and a middle/upper class Labour party which is nothing like its British cousin. The major parties here are both nationalists and right of centre, and they've exchanged control of government since independence.

PR encourages interactions and deal making between the centre left and the centre right rather than forcing them in and out of government era by era, meaning that politics is more stable and less oppositional, it also means that vast swathes of a country's votes aren't ignored for long periods of time breeding the sense of alienation and disconnection and grievance which is common to the political cultures of FPTP systems. Majoritarianism makes for a divided state, I think that's fairly starkly outlined in the US.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Find themes at Zathyus Networks