General Election

[ictchris]

Brown's resigned. Queen to ask Cameron to form a government, which will either be a coalition or understanding with the Liberal Democrats. Talk is of Clegg being Deputy Prime Minister.

[Johnboy]

Brown's resigned. Queen to ask Cameron to form a government, which will either be a coalition or understanding with the Liberal Democrats. Talk is of Clegg being Deputy Prime Minister.

Sad, sad day in British politics, I fear.

[Yngwie]

Why? Because we are getting a system whereby the 3rd biggest party will always be in government?

[Johnboy]

Just the memories of struggling to pay off a mortgage during the 1980's at an interest rate of 10% when dear old Maggie thought it would be a great idea to raise it to 15%.

The thought of going back to that kind of regime which benefitted only the very rich, fills me with dread and despair.

[Charles Bannerman]

Oh well... so much for the "mighty hand" which Big Alec claimed Fate had dealt him even as he emerged with SIX of the 20 seats he blustered that he'd get. And I'm not hearing much of the Scottish Jig music he boasted Westminster would be dancing to in the event of a hung Parliament!

[Glebeict]

With the consevatives " trying to run Things " , I would think the SNP will be end up being very very happy .

[Yngwie]

Just the memories of struggling to pay off a mortgage during the 1980's at an interest rate of 10% when dear old Maggie thought it would be a great idea to raise it to 15%.

The thought of going back to that kind of regime which benefitted only the very rich, fills me with dread and despair.

Times have changed Johnboy, the Bank of England are tasked with controlling inflation and interest rates these days, to limit the damage politicians can do.

As for your 2nd point, are you conveniently forgetting about the basic rate of income tax being slashed from 33% to 23%, benefitting pretty much everyone?

[TopSix]

Danny Alexander is going to apparently be the new Tory secretary of state for Scotland... Wonder how many people who voted for him thought that would happen?

[CaleyD]

Wow, can't believe the Lib Dems got so far into bed with the Tories. Will be interesting to see how many seats they hold on to in Scotland at the next election following that. Also makes you wonder just how much it was about "the good of the country" as opposed to Clegg getting the Deputy position!!!

I have a feeling it's all going to go horribly, horribly wrong in the next 12 months (if that long).

[TopSix]

Hopefully people will now see the lib dems for what they really are - a bunch of tories! Fingers crossed they get wiped out in Scotland at the next election.

[ictchris]

When was the last time an Inverness MP was in the Cabinet? I looked back until 1950 last night and none of them were Cabinet level.

[Yngwie]

When was the last time an Inverness MP was in the Cabinet?

If you were referring to the drinks cabinet however......

[starchief]

Hopefully people will now see the lib dems for what they really are - a bunch of tories! Fingers crossed they get wiped out in Scotland at the next election.

And why do you say that?

The Lib Dems stood for:

- no Trident (Labour wanted it)

- proportional reform (Labour hadn't introduced it although they pretended they would)

- more control over banks (Labour cosied up to the banks)

- greater European integration (Labour never had the guts)

- no illegal war on behalf of a gun-happy president (unlike Labour)

It's Labour that became a bunch of Tories!

[Charles Bannerman]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Picking up from Starchief's last comment, in the mid 90s Labour finally recognised that they had been unelectable for at least a decade and said "Right (literally as it happened!) Comrades, what do we have to do to get elected? Tell you what, we'd better pinch a few of these Tory policies since they seem to have worked OK at the ballot box for them. But no more of this Comrade mularkey... and we'd better scrap Clause 4 when we're at it. And we'll throw in a few phrases like Social Inclusion just to kid on the Left Wing that we're still Socialists."

And hence a lurch to the Right, from which emerged New Labour which isn't really all that different from the Tories especially since they have at least lost some of their dreadful excesses of the Thatcher era. In fact the most left wing mainstream party in Britain nowadays is the LibDems and the rest of that vacuum has been filled by various Citizen Smith concerns who have provided entertainment and little else. And for the far right in the wake of the Tories' modest leftward lurch, there's always UKIP. (I'll leave the BNP out of it since they are utterly beyond the pale in any situation.)

Fast forward now to last Thursday when NO party was given an unqualified mandate for its manifesto and policies by the UK electorate so if we are going to get a Government, whoever is going to be involved is going to have to make concessions and adopt compromises. And what's so very wrong with that since none of them has been given a full mandate in the first place?

Also, what's the only alternative to what has happened? Put together an unwieldy "Progressive Alliance of discredited Labour and the LibDems which has to give completely disproportionate influence to all the wee local single issue rump groupings (one of which is so Regressive that it wants to turn the clock back more than 300 years), and which is guaranteed to fall apart very quickly under a Prime Minister who was not even a party leader in the run up to last Thursday.

Simply you cannot please all of the people all of the time in a situation where the vote was distributed as it was on Thursday. Prioroty number one, especially in the current economic climate, has to be the ongoing government of the country and this is the only game in town. It might leave the Toffs with the upper hand but that's the only game in town at the moment in advance of the possibility of another election within 18 months.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Charles Bannerman

[CaleyD]

I'm not surprised we've got a Tory government, I'm just surprised that the Lib Dems went the whole hog and got into bed with them in such dramatic fashion...especially when you consider how far apart the two parties were on some of the "bigger" issues.

I'm not a Lib Dem voter, but if I was I would be outraged by what's happened and I certainly wouldn't be putting my cross in their box in the future.

The Lib Dems would have held far more sway in the decision making processes if they had simply stated that they would not contest a minority Tory government. However they have compromised themselves, the party and the faith of their voters by selling out in return for the Deputy's seat.

Their actions will undoubtedly force a divide within the party and we could very well face a situation whereby the majority gained on paper by the coalition doesn't exist in the realms of reality.

It's an unnatural alliance which can bear no real end product. Politics is a slow enough process at the best of times and the last thing we need is the further stumbling block of two parties who reside so far apart on the political scale wasting even more time with back room bartering before they can bring stuff to the table....a table which will then offer no guarantee of reform because even it's own members are so divided.

If we were going to go down this route then we'd have probably been better with a Labour/Tory coalition. At least then we would have had a real chance of the best policies from both sides being brought in to play instead of Tory policies plus some half baked compromises to keep the Lib Dems happy.

[The Mantis]

And to think that only the other day I was texting Naelifts to ask what was the difference between a Clegg bite and a midgie bite...

Oh well, another election in October, with the T*r*es to win this time.

Edited May 12, 2010 by The Mantis

[starchief]

I'm not a Lib Dem voter, but if I was I would be outraged by what's happened and I certainly wouldn't be putting my cross in their box in the future.

I float but am closer to the Lib Dems than most. I'm glad they've done this. Looking at the policies it, rather surprisingly seems to have been mostly derived from the Lib Dem side with a couple of Tory pieces tacked on.

The Lib Dems would have held far more sway in the decision making processes if they had simply stated that they would not contest a minority Tory government. However they have compromised themselves, the party and the faith of their voters by selling out in return for the Deputy's seat.

I disagree entirely. The Lib Dems will have achieved far more in 2-3 years than they have in the past 80. We'll now have a fairer tax system, green policies and a referendum on a fairer voting system. We'll also have strong voices in Cabinet that won't follow a gun-happy president wherever he decides to blow up next. And what have they given up?

- Trident? Would have been supported by Labour so no choice.

- The Euro? Wouldn't have happened this parliament.

- A referendum on any further Euro treaties? LDs are generally in favour of referenda

- A cap on immigrants? It's not so much bad as stupid, as it only affects 1/8 of immigrants. And as the govt will be adopting the points system (as the LDs first proposed) to only let in well-qualified people in under-resourced areas, it's unneeded.

- PR? Neither Labour nor Tory wants it, so would never pass, so AV being offered is a result not expected from the Tories.

Even if the LDs are wiped out in the next couple of parliaments, it's still worth it to get these ideas through. Much better than perpetual opposition. Make no mistake, this govt is no more right-wing than the last one.

Edited May 12, 2010 by starchief

[ictchris]

I am a proper liberal so am interested to see where this goes.

[TopSix]

Just listening to Nick Robinson, cameron is going to show 'respect' to Scotland. Give us the good news Danny.

[Renegade]

Could be worse I suppose!

How to attack character in Alabama

Alabama Govenor Statement

Edited May 13, 2010 by Renegade

[ictchris]

Coalition agreement

I agree with quite a lot of what they have set out. Especially like the bits about civil liberties and raising the levels of income tax allowance. Not so keen on the ridiculous immigration cap (a complete waste of time and bureacratic nightmare) and the ambigious policies on banking, although I agree that a review should be carried out on banking regulations and that the Tri-partite system should be scrapped.

The elephant in the room is the budget deficit - this needs to be cut and the cuts will be massive. Labour's growth forecasts are looking optimistic meaning that the cuts may need to be deeper than first thought. Do the Lib Dems have the stomach for this? I think that CLegg, Laws, Cable, Alexander et al do but taking their colleagues and party with them might be difficult.

[Sorted]

The dust has settled and the programme of cuts announced. Lots of big numbers against, in the majority of cases, populist sectors but, as normal, the detail to follow.

I have one fundamental problem with the CONDEM Party, particularly the DEM piece of the jigsaw. Isn't there something quite immoral about going into coalition without advising the public of your intention before they go to the ballot box? Clegg and Co had choices and they chose the CON option. Surely they had considered this in advance as the outcome of the election wasn't a surprise? Anyone with any measure of gumption recognised the scenario that was going to unfold on election night, most well in advance. Accordingly, the right and proper option for the DEMs was to tell the public in advance that it was always their intention to co-operate with the party achieving the highest number of seats which, as we all knew, would be the CONs. With this knowledge in advance, the public could then chose to vote DEM if they so wished. Instead, we now have a huge number of embarrassed voters who have ensured that Herr Flick and his gang of right wing monsters have secured power.

If I, as a left of centre individual by instinct had exercised my right to vote DEM, based on many of their left of centre pledges, I would be gob smacked. And, all for the price of a few cabinet posts and a company car.

The $64 million question placed to Fanny Alexander, MP:

In light of your highly publicised pre election campaign to have the irrelevant position of Secretary of State for Scotland abolished, will you, in your recently appointed position as Secretary of State for Scotland, carry out your desire now you have the power to do so?

You couldn't make it up could you.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Sorted

[ictchris]

The dust has settled and the programme of cuts announced. Lots of big numbers against, in the majority of cases, populist sectors but, as normal, the detail to follow.

I have one fundamental problem with the CONDEM Party, particularly the DEM piece of the jigsaw. Isn't there something quite immoral about going into coalition without advising the public of your intention before they go to the ballot box? Clegg and Co had choices and they chose the CON option. Surely they had considered this in advance as the outcome of the election wasn't a surprise? Anyone with any measure of gumption recognised the scenario that was going to unfold on election night, most well in advance. Accordingly, the right and proper option for the DEMs was to tell the public in advance that it was always their intention to co-operate with the party achieving the highest number of seats which, as we all knew, would be the CONs. With this knowledge in advance, the public could then chose to vote DEM if they so wished. Instead, we now have a huge number of embarrassed voters who have ensured that Herr Flick and his gang of right wing monsters have secured power.

If I, as a left of centre individual by instinct had exercised my right to vote DEM, based on many of their left of centre pledges, I would be gob smacked. And, all for the price of a few cabinet posts and a company car.

The $64 million question placed to Fanny Alexander, MP:

In light of your highly publicised pre election campaign to have the irrelevant position of Secretary of State for Scotland abolished, will you, in your recently appointed position as Secretary of State for Scotland, carry out your desire now you have the power to do so?

You couldn't make it up could you.

The LIberal Democrats DID say in advance that they would talk to the party with the biggest number of seats. Perhaps Liberal Democrat voters would see that the route that they have gone down was the only real option they had. The coalition document also puts into play a rather remarkable number of Liberal Democrat policies - they have got more out of this than "a few cabinet posts and a company car". This is how coalitions are formed, it's how politics works. You run on a programme and then, if one party doesn't get an overall majority, you form a coaltion, agree which parts of each manifesto to implement and then get on with implementing them.

The Liberal Democrats have formed alliances with the Conservatives on many local councils across the UK and Nick Clegg is the most right-leaning leader they have had. I voted Liberal Democrat and am pretty satisfied with the coalition agreement and what they've done so far.

[starchief]

Isn't there something quite immoral about going into coalition without advising the public of your intention before they go to the ballot box?

I don't know of a single party that announced who they would go into a coalition with. Labour never said they were considering a coalition with the Ulster Unionists or the UDP. SNP never said they would support Brown's Labour government. So why just pick on the Lib Dems?

Clegg and Co had choices and they chose the CON option. Surely they had considered this in advance as the outcome of the election wasn't a surprise? Anyone with any measure of gumption recognised the scenario that was going to unfold on election night, most well in advance. Accordingly, the right and proper option for the DEMs was to tell the public in advance that it was always their intention to co-operate with the party achieving the highest number of seats which, as we all knew, would be the CONs. With this knowledge in advance, the public could then chose to vote DEM if they so wished.

"It would be "preposterous" for Labour to have its leader remain in Number 10 if it came third in terms of votes"

"it was "potty" Labour could get fewer votes than their rivals but still try to form a government. "

"Clegg has been quite clear: the party with the biggest mandate should have the first chance to form a government"

For Clegg to go into coalition with the largest party is only a shock to those that never read his speeches.

Instead, we now have a huge number of embarrassed voters who have ensured that Herr Flick and his gang of right wing monsters have secured power.

As opposed to the right-wing party of the previous government that allowed free reign to bankers, invaded Iraq, opposed strikes, wanted to renew Trident, increased surveillance, wanted ID cards and was introducing biometric passports.

If I, as a left of centre individual by instinct had exercised my right to vote DEM, based on many of their left of centre pledges, I would be gob smacked.

The Labour Party are just as right-wing as the Tories - in some ways, more so, in other ways, not. I, as a left of centre individual by instinct, feel far more betrayed by the above Labour policies than the LDs as a junior partner bringing the Tories to a far more moderate position.

And, all for the price of a few cabinet posts and a company car.

All for the price of a fairer tax system, a fairer voting system, more control over banking, a strong voice opposing foreign wars, a more stable government than the "rainbow alliance" and more power than the LDs have ever had in the last 80 years.

The $64 million question placed to Fanny Alexander, MP:

In light of your highly publicised pre election campaign to have the irrelevant position of Secretary of State for Scotland abolished, will you, in your recently appointed position as Secretary of State for Scotland, carry out your desire now you have the power to do so?

You couldn't make it up could you.

LDs are in a junior position. Vote for them in the next General Election and I'm sure you'll get your wish if they form the majority government. After all, I'm sure you won't be voting a right-wing party like Labour, whilst someone like the SNP would have supported their policies in a Rainbow Coalition, so they're probably out for you as well.

It's about time people realised that Labour abandoned socialism many years ago. The only left-wing thing about them is their history - and that's hardly something to vote for.

[Sorted]

Perfectly fair answers particularly in relation to Clegg saying he would deal with the biggest party first. Stand corrected.

For the record I have never voted Labour and continue to seek an independent left of centre Scotland which, by assessing our voting patterns of the past forty years, is what we would have would have should we gain self determination.

My gripe with the DEMs is they operate on the prostitute principle. Any party willing to pay the price can use them for the purpose they see fit within reason. Lib/Lab pacts in Holryrood, Lib/Con pacts in Councils now this. The pretense is that it is their desire to see the "liberal agenda" promoted but in reality, their unquenched thirst for power is what drives them. Trident anyone?

In other modern Western European democracies such as Germany, the electorate have a very clear understanding of who the political bedfellows are well in advance of casting your vote. This allows you to chose which extremity of the likely successful incumbent you wish to support. A far fairer system.

Lastly, I repeat, will Danny Alexander, as Secretary of State for Scotland do as he said he would in his election address and abolish the position of Secretary of State for Scotland?

His refusal, and indeed acceptance of the post, would be clear proof to any doubters that the thirst for power is far more important that the need for justice and fairness. I await with interest.