Ah, go on! Why not?

I hope my fellow Brits have all toddled off to their respective polling stations and cast their vote to ensure we suffer no more at the hands of Brown and his left-wing cronies.  :willya

" I hope my fellow Brits have all toddled off to their respective polling stations and cast their vote  "

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/Ry5uB0uV3DI/AAAAAAAAE4g/s7o-vVcIjJc/s320/nick-clegg.jpg !!!!!

Joey,they're electing a PM. Not a BM. That leaves you out.

Joey wrote on May 6^th, 2010 at 3:13pm:

" I hope my fellow Brits have all toddled off to their respective polling stations and cast their vote  " http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/Ry5uB0uV3DI/AAAAAAAAE4g/s7o-vVcIjJc/s320/nick-clegg.jpg !!!!!

Hmm... possibly! He did indeed fair fairly well in the first of the three televised debates - and many do indeed feel the Liberals are a viable alternative.

listening to mr framptons latest-Thank you Mr Churchill

any drones out there?

Honky Tonk Man wrote on May 6^th, 2010 at 3:24pm:

Joey wrote on May 6th, 2010 at 3:13pm: " I hope my fellow Brits have all toddled off to their respective polling stations and cast their vote  " http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/Ry5uB0uV3DI/AAAAAAAAE4g/s7o-vVcIjJc/s320/nick-clegg.jpg !!!!! Hmm... possibly! He did indeed fair fairly well in the first of the three televised debates - and many do indeed feel the Liberals are a viable alternative.

If they do, it speaks volumes for the failings in our education system and would be proof that the electorate has shit for brains.

I hope that folks in the UK turn out better than over here... our turnout rate is so low for those who are eligible... Just a shame so many take this great right for granted....
so... who is the new king of great britain anyway?

Pdog wrote on May 6^th, 2010 at 8:36pm:

I hope that folks in the UK turn out better than over here... our turnout rate is so low for those who are eligible... Just a shame so many take this great right for granted.... so... who is the new king of great britain anyway?

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

Not quite all the 650 seats have been decided yet, but the Conservatives will be the largest party, albeit without an overall majority - so its likely that David Cameron wil be P.M, heading a minority government unless he can strike a deal with a few minor parties to form a coalition.

Technically speaking, as incumbent PM, Gordon Brown has the right to try and make a deal with other parties to form a government although thats unlikely to happen. If he can't, then the Queen will ask Cameron, as leader of the largest party, to try and form one.

This is only the second change of government in the UK since 1979 (Labour have been in power since 1997). We also tend not to have coalition or minority governments (hasnt been one since the 70s), so I would imagine that if Cameron gets in we'll have another election in a few months to see if he can get a majority.

A hung parliament (and therefore a weak government) at a time of economic uncertainty like we have now would be an outcome we really DONT need.

Will this mean welfare reform and immigration reform?  
If there is no majority it will mean very little gets done as it does here won't it?

Tumbled wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 9:02am:

Will this mean welfare reform and immigration reform?   If there is no majority it will mean very little gets done as it does here won't it?

a) Most certainly (in theory anyway). All the parties have different policies on both issues

b) Correct.

I don't understand why Gordon Brown is not stepping down.  How come he has the option to do a referendum.  

Now I see he is trying to make friends with the liberal democrats to form a coalition.  

Never mind you already answered the question


Meanwhile: the GBP plummets... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1274083/FTSE-Dow-Jones-slump-amid-hung-parliament-Greek-debt-crisis-fears.html

Can someone please explain the benefit of a winner-take-all/first past the post system? Isn't it more fair to have the European mainland system, in which the percentage of the vote becomes the percentage of the seats? I'm not saying it's better mind you, but it must be frustrating to be a liberal in the UK: pretty solid following, but just a few seats in het house...I would never vote for the Dutch Green Party if it wouldn't matter, now they have 8 to 12 seats in the house each round.

an amazing, amazing night - i stayed up till 4am, engrossed in the stunning, unfolding events.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/features/d/content/images/2010/05/07/cameron_clegg_inbed_626x260.jpg

Teiz wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 9:43am:

Can someone please explain the benefit of a winner-take-all/first past the post system?

Theoretically the elctorate decide who's the next P.M and not a bunch of MP's in smoke-filled back rooms ( a cert with coalitions)

First past the post is a system i believe in, and a system i'm most comfortable with.
However, the situation remains....we have a hung parliament, and Cameron is talking to Clegg.....watch this space.

" we have a hung parliament, and Cameron is talking to Clegg.....watch this space "

Cheers Ade  !!!!!

Meet you for breakfast / lunch  tomorrow at Mick & Pete's Local :

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/restaurants/images/060207_roebuck.jpg !!!!!




" Welsh Rarebit , Ronnie ! "


Joey Clegg ! ™

Teiz wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 9:43am:

Can someone please explain the benefit of a winner-take-all/first past the post system? Isn't it more fair to have the European mainland system, in which the percentage of the vote becomes the percentage of the seats? I'm not saying it's better mind you, but it must be frustrating to be a liberal in the UK: pretty solid following, but just a few seats in het house...I would never vote for the Dutch Green Party if it wouldn't matter, now they have 8 to 12 seats in the house each round.

One word - stability. Its also less prone to corruption, as you're less likely to have to make underhand deals with small parties who end up wielding influence and power way in excess of their electoral mandate. With PR, we'd NEVER have a government elected with a majority. How many governments and elections have countries like Italy and Ireland had since World War Two? A recipe for chaos. Apart from the Lib Dems, I don't really think there's much demand for it. We DO use it for European and local government elections, though.

:wtf3

I don't understand this political thread...why aren't any of you swearing and calling each other names? Are the Clegg supporters mindless drones, or Cameron's? Who's the Marxist candidate and have you seen his birth certificate?

This doesn't seem like politics at all.

Jesus Christ wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 11:09am:

:wtf3 I don't understand this political thread...why aren't any of you swearing and calling each other names? Are the Clegg supporters mindless drones, or Cameron's? Who's the Marxist candidate and have you seen his birth certificate? This doesn't seem like politics at all.

the electorate are always right.
We leave the mudslinging and the unsavoury behaviour to the politicians, over hear.

Pdog wrote on May 6^th, 2010 at 8:36pm:

I hope that folks in the UK turn out better than over here... our turnout rate is so low for those who are eligible... Just a shame so many take this great right for granted.... so... who is the new king of great britain anyway?

average turnout = 65%, up on 2005

Jesus:  The answer is they are more civilized and educated on the other side of the ocean.  

What I don't understand is why they even vote at all if coalitions are formed afterward and the queen still has to announce the PM. and the loser gets to hold referendums.  It just doesn't make any sense.

Teiz wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 9:43am:

Can someone please explain the benefit of a winner-take-all/first past the post system? Isn't it more fair to have the European mainland system, in which the percentage of the vote becomes the percentage of the seats? I'm not saying it's better mind you, but it must be frustrating to be a liberal in the UK: pretty solid following, but just a few seats in het house...I would never vote for the Dutch Green Party if it wouldn't matter, now they have 8 to 12 seats in the house each round.

Who the fuck wants to be Italy?!?!   :aimama

Tumbled wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 2:55pm:

Jesus:  The answer is they are more civilized and educated on the other side of the ocean.   What I don't understand is why they even vote at all if coalitions are formed afterward and the queen still has to announce the PM. and the loser gets to hold referendums.  It just doesn't make any sense.

Coalitions are rarely formed afterwards because as we rarely have minority governments they're generally not necessary. And if they ar, its always as a short term fix.

And I've no idea where you get this 'loser gets to hold referendums' idea from. Complete fiction.

Jesus Christ wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 11:09am:

:wtf3 I don't understand this political thread...why aren't any of you swearing and calling each other names? Are the Clegg supporters mindless drones, or Cameron's? Who's the Marxist candidate and have you seen his birth certificate? This doesn't seem like politics at all.

Funny!
But there are more similarities between our two countries's politics than meet the eye, JC!
We now have a hung parliament - You now have a well-hung President.
As to pointless mud-slinging: As Gazza said, we leave that to our politicians...And, if I may speak for all of us, we ROers residing in the UK are still suffering from severe acute post-traumatic-stress-syndrome after having even partially read your Obama thread, so our fragile psyche does not allow us to attack our brethren. Plus, our philosophy of life is more "everyone is entitled to their very personal views on politics without being attacked or offended". It's a direct by-product from having an older and wiser cicilisation. You may want to try that sometime.....


:pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte
:kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass

as Gazza correctly states, a short term fix.
The last Hung Election was March 1974...a second election was called in October of that year. Quite feasible we have another General Election sooner rather than later.

jostorm wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 4:14pm:

Jesus Christ wrote on May 7th, 2010 at 11:09am: :wtf3 I don't understand this political thread...why aren't any of you swearing and calling each other names? Are the Clegg supporters mindless drones, or Cameron's? Who's the Marxist candidate and have you seen his birth certificate? This doesn't seem like politics at all. Funny! But there are more similarities between our two countries's politics than meet the eye, JC! We now have a hung parliament - You now have a well-hung President. As to pointless mud-slinging: As Gazza said, we leave that to our politicians...And, if I may speak for all of us, we ROers residing in the UK are still suffering from severe acute post-traumatic-stress-syndrome after having even partially read your Obama thread, so our fragile psyche does not allow us to attack our brethren. Plus, our philosophy of life is more "everyone is entitled to their very personal views on politics without being attacked or offended". It's a direct by-product from having an older and wiser cicilisation. You may want to try that sometime..... :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :pullanolte :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass :kissmyass

Oh Missy...too funny! ;D

The way my wee brain see's it is that there really isn't  much difference which way it hangs..

neither one of our government's is capable of accomplishing much in a timely fashion

Gazza wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 10:13am:

Teiz wrote on May 7th, 2010 at 9:43am: Can someone please explain the benefit of a winner-take-all/first past the post system? Isn't it more fair to have the European mainland system, in which the percentage of the vote becomes the percentage of the seats? I'm not saying it's better mind you, but it must be frustrating to be a liberal in the UK: pretty solid following, but just a few seats in het house...I would never vote for the Dutch Green Party if it wouldn't matter, now they have 8 to 12 seats in the house each round. One word - stability. Its also less prone to corruption, as you're less likely to have to make underhand deals with small parties who end up wielding influence and power way in excess of their electoral mandate. With PR, we'd NEVER have a government elected with a majority. How many governments and elections have countries like Italy and Ireland had since World War Two? A recipe for chaos. Apart from the Lib Dems, I don't really think there's much demand for it. We DO use it for European and local government elections, though.

This election could be the last of first past the post though as both Cameron AND Brown have offered reforms to the electoral system in an atempt to do the deal with Clegg. The Lib Dems have a lot of bargaining power and it looks like Clegg will get himself a nice new job in the Cabinet. It is likely that Labour will ditch Brown and try and rebuild in time for a seemingly inevitable election in a few months. Just imagne it, Mandy as PM.....

Also Gazza, what do you think of aul Peter Robinson losing his seat to Naomi Long in East Belfast?

I'm not saying coalition governments are perfect or anything. In the Netherlands alone we're going to have elections in june: it's the 5th in 8 years, after 20 relatively stable yearsin the 80's and 90's.

But the winner takes all routine robs a lot of people from their votes. Labour has 6 percent more votes than the libs, yet they outnumber them in the house by almost 200 mp's. That's pretty weird, no? This way, in most districts you can just as well stay home during elections if you don't want to vote for either Labour or the Tories. It's the same in the US: a lot of folks vote for the two big parties because they feel one of those two is the lesser evil. It may result in a more stable government, but in the end a lot of folks don't get to make their voice heared and the big parties can rule for over a decade without having a majority behind them.

By a 'majority', do you mean a majority of the seats or the electorate?

Its pretty much impossible to get 50% of the votes in a UK election. If a party was to get even about 42% they'd have a landslide victory.

As for a majority of the seats - World War Two ended 65 years ago tomorrow. If you added up all the time since then that the UK has had a government which didnt have a working majority, it would probably be about two years in total.

The system discriminates in favour of a two-party system, but whilst the 3rd most popular party gets under represented, its still preferable to giving a lot of smaller parties an influence their mandate doesn't warrant.

Italy, to give an example of what Jizzy was alluding to earlier, has had 61 changes of government since the war. This will only be our seventh. 'Nuff said.

SoulPlunderer wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 5:28pm:

Gazza wrote on May 7th, 2010 at 10:13am: Teiz wrote on May 7th, 2010 at 9:43am: Can someone please explain the benefit of a winner-take-all/first past the post system? Isn't it more fair to have the European mainland system, in which the percentage of the vote becomes the percentage of the seats? I'm not saying it's better mind you, but it must be frustrating to be a liberal in the UK: pretty solid following, but just a few seats in het house...I would never vote for the Dutch Green Party if it wouldn't matter, now they have 8 to 12 seats in the house each round. One word - stability. Its also less prone to corruption, as you're less likely to have to make underhand deals with small parties who end up wielding influence and power way in excess of their electoral mandate. With PR, we'd NEVER have a government elected with a majority. How many governments and elections have countries like Italy and Ireland had since World War Two? A recipe for chaos. Apart from the Lib Dems, I don't really think there's much demand for it. We DO use it for European and local government elections, though. This election could be the last of first past the post though as both Cameron AND Brown have offered reforms to the electoral system in an atempt to do the deal with Clegg. The Lib Dems have a lot of bargaining power and it looks like Clegg will get himself a nice new job in the Cabinet. It is likely that Labour will ditch Brown and try and rebuild in time for a seemingly inevitable election in a few months. Just imagne it, Mandy as PM..... Also Gazza, what do you think of aul Peter Robinson losing his seat to Naomi Long in East Belfast?

No chance of Labour getting back in. Especially if that gobshite Mandelson is party leader.

Robinson's defeat was a massive surprise that none of the polls came close to predicting. Probably the biggest turn up of the whole election nationwide. Its actually my own area. He lost it because the Unionist vote split (three candidates - including the TUV dinosaurs - instead of the usual two), because of the doubts over his financial dealings - but also because Naomi really worked her arse off for her win. East Belfast isnt really an Alliance stronghold at all, but she's very pro-active and high profile even between elections and she was able to cross normal party lines because of it. Fair play to her -I think she'll actually be a good MP.

Gazza wrote on May 7^th, 2010 at 6:15pm:

SoulPlunderer wrote on May 7th, 2010 at 5:28pm: Gazza wrote on May 7th, 2010 at 10:13am: Teiz wrote on May 7th, 2010 at 9:43am: Can someone please explain the benefit of a winner-take-all/first past the post system? Isn't it more fair to have the European mainland system, in which the percentage of the vote becomes the percentage of the seats? I'm not saying it's better mind you, but it must be frustrating to be a liberal in the UK: pretty solid following, but just a few seats in het house...I would never vote for the Dutch Green Party if it wouldn't matter, now they have 8 to 12 seats in the house each round. One word - stability. Its also less prone to corruption, as you're less likely to have to make underhand deals with small parties who end up wielding influence and power way in excess of their electoral mandate. With PR, we'd NEVER have a government elected with a majority. How many governments and elections have countries like Italy and Ireland had since World War Two? A recipe for chaos. Apart from the Lib Dems, I don't really think there's much demand for it. We DO use it for European and local government elections, though. This election could be the last of first past the post though as both Cameron AND Brown have offered reforms to the electoral system in an atempt to do the deal with Clegg. The Lib Dems have a lot of bargaining power and it looks like Clegg will get himself a nice new job in the Cabinet. It is likely that Labour will ditch Brown and try and rebuild in time for a seemingly inevitable election in a few months. Just imagne it, Mandy as PM..... Also Gazza, what do you think of aul Peter Robinson losing his seat to Naomi Long in East Belfast? Massive surprise that none of the polls came close to predicting. Probably the biggest turn up of the whole election nationwide. Its actually my own area. He lost it because the Unionist vote split (three candidates - including the TUV dinosaurs - instead of the usual two), because of the doubts over his financial dealings - but also because Naomi really worked her arse off for her win. East Belfast isnt really an Alliance stronghold at all, but she's very pro-active and high profile even between elections and she was able to cross normal party lines because of it. Fair play to her -I think she'll actually be a good MP.

I think you're right. Alliance played it right though, they drew attention to their own policies rather than just run a slur campaign against Robinson. Naomi Long was right when she said that we need postive ploitics, which in my opinion doesn't involve pacts to try and keep out certain parties and politicians. It is also the reason that the TUV will get nowhere. I think that it is a great thing that we have an MP that isn't just another DUP/Sinn Fein member who was elected due to the old orange and green carve up. Hopefully Alliance can consolodate this victory in the Stormont elections which are next year I believe, and we can soon get a better political system that doesn't just revolve around nationalism/unionism and so on. The Tory/UUP alliance didn't really go anywhere but I hope that in the future, this will not stop Labour and Conservatives puting forward candidates here as they do in Wales and Scotland. It would be nice then to have an election in Northern Ireland that is based on politics and policies that people care about rather than old sectarian divides. The problem with this is that these divides are still relivant to older generations than my own because they lived through the violence of the past, and it is the older generations who tend to vote. But in a few generations, I really think that politics in N.I can be better and fairer.

Sorry to go off on one, but I've ben discussing this election all day, and just wanted to gather my views!

Cant really disagree with any of that, mate!

I can see the point of course, but Italy is the poorest example. Governments are less stable over here, but there's usually no very big movements in lawmaking or anything. Since WWII it's been between the social dems, the christian dems, and the conservative liberals. There's never been a working coalition without two of these three parties. It's that way in most countries with coalitions: two or three parties decide for the most part, the smaller guys only have a big influence on their prime issues.

Anyway, IMO it's far from perfect either way.  

Well, we – like most of the south east – now have a Conservative MP and that useless Jacqui Smith lost her constituency. All we need now is for Brown to hand the keys to Cameron so we can finally start to look forward. Goodbye Mr. Brown. You will not be missed.

can you imagine an american election thread being this civil....? ha!

" Cant really disagree with any of that, mate! "


Gazza , how come Ade and yourself did not make it to the Roebuck last evening to discuss all of this ' election business ' ?   I waited ten minutes and then drank your pint(s) .

J to the 'kins ! ™

Joey wrote on May 8^th, 2010 at 11:47am:

" Cant really disagree with any of that, mate! " Gazza , how come Ade and yourself did not make it to the Roebuck last evening to discuss all of this ' election business ' ?   I waited ten minutes and then drank your pint(s) . J to the 'kins ! ™

We were on our way but were robbed by that useless fucker Brown en route and couldnt afford it. Apologies.

Are these the candidates for the British Parliament? http://www.bdb.co.za/shackle/images/sheep_racing.jpg

with apologies to Riffhard...

it's coming soft and it's coming slow...

Honky Tonk Man wrote on May 8^th, 2010 at 6:03am:

Well, we – like most of the south east – now have a Conservative MP and that useless Jacqui Smith lost her constituency. All we need now is for Brown to hand the keys to Cameron so we can finally start to look forward. Goodbye Mr. Brown. You will not be missed.

BREAKING NEWS - Westminster police have announced that a deranged,delusional and highly dangerous Scotsman has barricaded himself into a large terraced house in London, and is currently holding 60 million people hostage.

yep - Gazza's correct .... currently there's a one-eyed Scottish idiot squatting in Downing Street, although 'Breaking News' indicates a Con-LibDem deal is imminent.  :booze

now let's have a group hug and get on with trying to sort out the economy.  :Youmakeagrownmancrylikejoey

I thought he had to stay in office until things were decided. He can't go to the queen and resign if there is technically no one to replace him / Labour ?

sc uk

technically you are quite correct.....but if there's an excuse to call Brown, a 'squatting one-eyed Scottish idiot', i'm going to take it, and now seems an opportune time.

One thing that concerns me regarding the Liberal Democrats is that I understand their immigration policy could be even more lax than that of Labours – but we’ll see, I suppose.

I would rather there not be a coalition between the Tories and Clegg, but I would certainly take it over the latter striking a deal with Labour.

Another question for the Brits: why is it that a prime minister can decide to leave and appoint a new guy that waits with elections for several years? Blair did it with Brown, and if I recall correctly Thatcher did the same with Major. I can see why one would vote for Blair or even Thatcher (not me, I'm a lefty), but it would've pissed me off if they decide to step down and leave a turd to run the office. The USA has it covered with the running mate, but wouldn't it be normal to announce an election if the PM steps down?

good question T. -  while I will defer to the greater knowledge of any Brit ROers who will tell me if I get it wrong  Britains system is much like ours i.e. a constitutional monarchy...that is to say at the election you do not cast your vote for (in this case) Brown or Clegg or Cameron (unless they are are running in your electorate) but you vote for your local Member of Parliament - the PM is is just the leader of the party, elected by the party, that wins the most seats and can form a government..so if PM quits mid term (which would result in a by-election in his or her electorate) he or she is replaced by the new leader of the party (as chosen by the party)

it is much more party orientated as opposed to the individual...having said that the nature of political campaigns in both the UK (as it seems to me - witness this election first time for televised debates) and Aus. have become progressively more "presidential"as the years go by - i.e. the individual and not the party or its policies is what is presented to the voters

You see, this is the thing: although you are voting in your own constituency and for the local candidates, your eyes are on the bigger deal: I.E., the party you want in government and the prime minister. All you can do is vote for the party you hope to govern and hope the rest of the constituency is voting the same way.  It is flawed however, as one can’t help that your vote is waste if the party you vote for fails to gain the seat where you are. Part of me wishes the deciding factor is based on the actual number of votes and not just which party gains the majority of MP’s.

stonedinaustralia wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 3:39am:

good question T. -  while I will defer to the greater knowledge of any Brit ROers who will tell me if I get it wrong  Britains system is much like ours i.e. a constitutional monarchy...that is to say at the election you do not cast your vote for (in this case) Brown or Clegg or Cameron (unless they are are running in your electorate) but you vote for your local Member of Parliament - the PM is is just the leader of the party, elected by the party, that wins the most seats and can form a government..so if PM quits mid term (which would result in a by-election in his or her electorate) he or she is replaced by the new leader of the party (as chosen by the party) it is much more party orientated as opposed to the individual...having said that the nature of political campaigns in both the UK (as it seems to me - witness this election first time for televised debates) and Aus. have become progressively more "presidential"as the years go by - i.e. the individual and not the party or its policies is what is presented to the voters

You're quite correct,. We don't elect a PM. We elect a Member of Parliament. The leader of the party with the most MP's forms a government (the Prime Minister is also an MP, with the same obligations to his constituents as every other MP.

It was pretty much common knowledge at the last election in 2005 that if he won a third term, Blair would step down mid-term and let Brown (who was Chancellor of the Exchequer) take over.

which from this distance seemed like a mistake  - brown looked all right when he popped his head over the barricades once a year at budget time - plenty of gravitas there - but as leader of the troops on the 24/7 news cycle he just comes across as a bit stodgy  


still that's politics - he had put in the time so he was '"entitled"

So that's widely accepted? We don't directly elect our PM over here as well, but if one would resign I'm pretty sure we'll see yet another election. Probably a thing for coalition-gvt's. There was some speculation about it a while back, when the dude that runs the government was named as a candidate for the highest seat in the EU. Much to my surprise they found a guy with even less character...

stonedinaustralia wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 7:06am:

which from this distance seemed like a mistake  - brown looked all right when he popped his head over the barricades once a year at budget time - plenty of gravitas there - but as leader of the troops on the 24/7 news cycle he just comes across as a bit stodgy   still that's politics - he had put in the time so he was '"entitled"

Brown had a good reputation as a Chancellor before he became PM.

Events of the last few years have shown that reputation to have been very wide of the mark.

Teiz wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 7:16am:

So that's widely accepted? We don't directly elect our PM over here as well, but if one would resign I'm pretty sure we'll see yet another election. Probably a thing for coalition-gvt's. There was some speculation about it a while back, when the dude that runs the government was named as a candidate for the highest seat in the EU. Much to my surprise they found a guy with even less character...

There's a significant difference. If a PM resigns mid-term due to some crisis (as Thatcher did in 1990, although the crisis in question was more to do with internal division as opposed to one which affected the electorate), then you have a point.

The transition between Blair and Brown wasnt as a result of some political turmoil (even though there was no love lost between them). They had agreed years earlier that (subject to winning elections) Blair would step down for him eventually, and the electorate knew in 2005 when they voted that Blair would not serve a full term.

There was actually talk of a leadership challenge to Brown last year. Had they replaced him then and STILL not have gone to the polls despite TWO leadership changes since the last election, then I think the public outcry would have been deafening.

Anyway, he's just now announced his intention to step down as Labour leader by the time of their party conference in the autumn. He'll stay as PM until a 'stable government' is formed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

stonedinaustralia wrote on May 9^th, 2010 at 4:45am:

with apologies to Riffhard... it's coming soft and it's coming slow...

Its warming up.

Sky News' Adam Boulton comes very close to chinning Labour's spinmaster Alastair Campbell live on TV.

About 3 mins in onwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8
Classic

Gazza wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 5:46pm:

stonedinaustralia wrote on May 9th, 2010 at 4:45am: with apologies to Riffhard... it's coming soft and it's coming slow... Its warming up. Sky News' Adam Boulton comes very close to chinning Labour's spinmaster Alastair Campbell live on TV. About 3 mins in onwards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8 Classic

Nothing like a "proper"  fistafight on TV...
Everybody talking- no one listening..... :willya

Going, Going......Gone!

are we done here?

Some Guy wrote on May 11^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:

are we done here?

347 pages to go!  :blankfriggingstare1

" Britain's David Cameron becomes PM; Brown out  "


" LONDON – Conservative leader David Cameron became Britain's youngest prime minister in almost 200 years Tuesday after Gordon Brown stepped down and ended 13 years of Labour government.

Cameron said he aims to form a full coalition government with the third-place Liberal Democrats after his Conservative Party won the most seats but did not get a majority in Britain national election last week.

The 43-year-old leader said it would be "hard and difficult work" to govern as a coalition but added that Britain had serious economic issues to tackle. Cameron visited Buckingham Palace and was asked to form a government by Queen Elizabeth II less than an hour after Brown tendered his resignation to the monarch.

Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's pact would be the first coalition government since World War II.

Arriving at London's Downing Street hand in hand with his wife Samantha, Cameron said he believed that Britain's "best days lie ahead."

Hundreds of onlookers, many of them booing, crowded the gates of Downing Street to watch on, as Cameron swept into his new home less than 90 minutes after an emotional Brown had made a farewell address.

"We have some deep and pressing problems — a huge deficit, deep social problems, a political system in need of reform," Cameron said. "For those reasons, I aim to form a proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats."




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_britain_election

the libs and cameron? how longe will that last?

Hard to say, to be honest. Its been so long since we've had a coalition government formed in the immediate aftermath of an election. Last time was during WW2. Hopefully, like then, they can put national interest above party politics at a time of crisis. Tv journalists seem to be hopeful they could make it last four years.

Edith Grove wrote on May 11^th, 2010 at 1:24pm:

Some Guy wrote on May 11th, 2010 at 1:22pm: are we done here? 347 pages to go!  :blankfriggingstare1

Compared to the american political thread,I can take about another 348 pgs. at least of this one. :sad

My guess is that they'll do fine. The economy is too big a mess to make a fuss about party politics. Governments simply cannot afford to fuck up in this situation. But since UK parties aren't used to coalitions, I guess it's gonna be interesting.

Our glorious, family-orientated, Prime Minister will probably give Mr. Clegg a fairly high-profile position in the Cabinet, before getting down to the real deal: a Conservative Government: yes, we have this nasty ‘coalition’ word, but we all know what’s really going on. The Tories are back!

Goodbye Mr. Brown!!!    :kissmyass

Honky Tonk Man wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 3:46am:

Goodbye Mr. Brown!!!    :kissmyass

An appropriate image and an appropriate name for a PM who fucked us up the keester and left us in the shit!

NOW is the hour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8fLOJswWtk

It's the Dave & Nick Show....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8678370.stm

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. :blankfriggingstare1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

this is why the  english never wrote down their constitution and thank god for  that

god save the queen

we mean it man