The UK has changed politically over the last thirteen years. It is now, not what it was. A new Federal UK could be formed if mainstrean politicians find the will to do so. If they don't, the UK may well cease to exist. Many Scots now want independence. A proportion of Welsh too. If England doesn't get political recognition soon. We may drift toward Independence.
The Tories gained no Scottish ground in the election. They started with one seat, today they have one seat. They are very much seen as English toffs suppresing Scotland. They are hated there. If by some miracle this changed, it would make no difference to our campaign for England to have equality within a Federal UK. The Tories currently support the unfair asymmetric Devolution settlement.
The debate over who puts most into the UK pot rages now. It makes no difference. Our campaign is about justice, fairness, equality and democracy for the people of England.
Wouldn't fairness and equality be better served by regional assembilies-sureley these would be more effective. Or do you just want an English parliament for the sake of having one- beacuse some one else has one and you feel left out. I'm not being flippant btw just trying to understand the motivation ?
Many of us in the English movement(s) believe New Labours decision to leave England out of Devolution was a serious blunder. The consequences were not thought through. (Blair said "it would stop Scottish Nationalism in it's tracks" The Scots are closer to Independence now than they have ever been since 1707) The fact is England is disadvantaged in the current set-up. Listen to politicians speak, they never speak of England politically, only "our country" or "this country" this is to mantain the blur between Britain, UK and England. When they speak on policy for Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland they say so. But England is never mentioned. Furthermore, the EU has already released some draft ideas for new Euro-regions. These involve chopping England into nine regions. But of course there is no plan to chop up Wales or Scotland. Whilst England remains New Labours "regions" the country is in danger. England is a proud and historic country, it is often said to be the home of Democracy. Let's keep it that way.
[cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]England is a proud and historic country. No one has the right to chop it into regions.
Nice soundbite, but why? Clearly all of the English regions are still English, but it's about governing them more effectively at a more local level. One that keeps the country together, something you don't seem concerned about.
In Scotland in this election, the Conservatives got 16.7% of the vote, compared to the SNP's 19.9%. They lose out in Scotland because of First Past The Post.
Why would you chop Scotland or Wales into regions? I already said they're smaller than many reasonable English regions
1. Lib Dems will not agree coalition or formal pact with Tories (in fact this will suit both parties providing both leaderships have been seen by electorate to have been trying to work in national interest)
2. Clegg will NOT do a deal with Brown or a caretaker PM that has not been voted in by electorate
3. Therefore there will be a minority Tory govt
4. Tory’s Queen Speech will pass on 25 May probably with Lib Dems abstaining (or with informal support if Clegg thinks that looks better to the electorate)
5. Labour will replace Brown
6. At some point in the autumn there will be a second general election. This will suit all parties, because:
• Tories will figure that they have to get a majority to gain power for full term (and that best chance of getting one if they go early on a national interest claim)
• Labour will have an electable leader acceptable to electorate or at worst acceptable to the Lib Dems if another hung parliament
• Lib Dems’ best chance of getting electoral reform in coalition with Labour
• Airman will lose again…………..sorry Airman
Alternative #2. Clegg will do a deal with Labour that allows Gordon Brown to stay in power for 12-18 months to steer the economy out of recession and see through electoral reform, there will then be a new elecition in all liklihood under a new voting system. Gordon Brown must give a public commitment to resign as leader of the Labour Party before the election and in any case before then end of 2011.
[quote][cite]Posted By: IA[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]England is a proud and historic country. No one has the right to chop it into regions.[/quote]
Nice soundbite, but why? Clearly all of the English regions are still English, but it's about governing them more effectively at a more local level. One that keeps the country together, something you don't seem concerned about.
In Scotland in this election, the Conservatives got 16.7% of the vote, compared to the SNP's 19.9%. They lose out in Scotland because of First Past The Post.
Why would you chop Scotland or Wales into regions? I already said they're smaller than many reasonable English regions[/quote]
You're not following. I would not wish to see Wales and Scotland regionalised, just as i won't standby and see England chopped up. You seem to believe i 'hold a torch' for the Tories. I dislike them as much as i dislike New Labour and the Lib Dems. They all support asymmetric Devolution. They all deny England, politically. All i want is for England to be treated equally to the other three nations of the (once)United Kingdom. Regional government of England should be subsidary to an English Parliament not to the EU. The very thing you accuse me of not being concerned about is 'keeping the country together' It's exactly what we aim to do.
Anyway, i spent hours at this keyboard yesterday putting the case for an English Parliament. I've already spent a couple of hours here today. You either agree with the problem as i have explained or you don't. If you wish to find out more, search the 'English Democrats' or 'Campaign for an English Parliament' Right now i have some work to do to ensure i'm free to watch Sky Sports News and follow Charlton Life match thread this afternoon. So i'm off now until about 3pm. COYA
Irrespective of what happens in terms of who forms the next government, the reality is that these elections are an absolute disaster for one party - The Conservatives.
This was supposed to be their "Tony Blair 1997" moment when they swept back to power after 13 years in the wilderness and yet when you look at the cold figures below you see that their performance has been abysmal when placed in the context of the worst recession in living memory and that they were campaigning against Gordon Brown who is a about as popular as an Hassidic Jew in Regents Park Mosque and has the charisma of Dr. Harold Shipman.
Look at the figures below contrasting Labour's 1997 election win compared to the Tories this year....
2010 Election - Total Seats
Tories - 306 (+97)
Labour - 258 (-91)
Lib Dems - 57 (-5)
2010 Election % of Vote
Tories - 36.1% (+3.8%)
Labour - 29% (-6.2%)
Lib Dems - 23% (+1.0%)
1997 Election Total Seats
Tories - 165 (-178)
Labour - 418 (+147)
Lib Dems - 46 (+28)
1997 Election % of Vote
Tories - 30.7% (-11.2%)
Labour - 43.2% (+8.8%)
Lib Dems - 16.8% (-1.0%)
They are amazing figures, the Tories increased their % of the vote by just 3.8% between 2005-2010 compared to Labour's 8.8% between 1992-1997.
Labour picked up a staggering 147 seats in 1997 compared to the Tories 97 in this election.
But the KEY figure is that Labour - not withstanding any PR changes that may come in - has emerged with a very respectable 258 seats from this election - just 48 behind the Tories - compared to the mere 165 seats the Tories captured in 1997 which left them an incredible 253 seats behind Labour!!!
What this means politically is that Labour has established a very useful bridge-head to regain power within a relatively short space of time (maybe 5 or 6 years) compared to the 13 years that the Tories were out of power.
After all, going from 165 seats to 326 seats is a massive mountain to climb - which is partly why the Tories failed to get to 326 this time - whereas going from 258 to 326 is nowhere near as difficult.
Sure, Brown will have to step down regardless, but I think most Labour folk will feel that they have really dodged a bullet and might prefer a spell in opposition leaving Cameron to take the flak for the inevitable cuts and then to have a new run under a new leader (probably David Milliband) once the Tory minority government falls.
The best thing for Labour is that any Tory-Lib coalition won't be able to go anywhere near any actual Tory policies like the inheritance tax cut or anything anti-Europe because the Lib Dems will not stand for it because they know if they did then they would really piss off their core vote and drive them to Labour.
The way this result has panned out is a disaster for Cameron, it leaves him in power but totally powerless unless he gets the support of the Lib Dems with whom the Tories agree on practically nothing.
If the Tories could not win a sweeping 350+ seats in this election and in these circumstances then we can say that the electoral face of Britain has changed significantly and that we may not see a majority Tory government for a very long time if ever.
For those who say that the Tories would "easily win" a majority in another election this year then I am afraid that is very much wishful thinking! They had money to burn, the support of 85% of the press, a hapless opponent, an awful recession and had been out of power for 13 years - why would things be any different if we did it all again in 8/9 months?
Agree with OA, complete disaster for the Tories. Labour have managed to engineer a huge bedrock of support from those who'd have nothing without state handouts (of one type or another) and gerrymandered the electoral base by making recent immigrants citizens (3m? is often quoted). The Tories are caught between trying to appease voters of a small 'l' liberal persuasion and those who are drawn to UKIP so their message lacks any clarity and passion. The tories hope now is to string things out for a few months, call an election and hope that UKIP voters come back to the fold and scrape a majority under FPTP. I'd be suprised if the LDs don't scupper that plan though.
[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]Alternative #2. Clegg will do a deal with Labour that allows Gordon Brown to stay in power for 12-18 months to steer the economy out of recession and see through electoral reform, there will then be a new elecition in all liklihood under a new voting system. Gordon Brown must give a public commitment to resign as leader of the Labour Party before the election and in any case before then end of 2011.
Not an option, unless Clegg wants to commit political suicide - would be an unstable coaltiion dependent for a majority on the Scot Nats and propping up Brown would drive conservative-minded Lib Dems back to theTories at the next election, which would be before year end, forced by a collapse in £ and a gilt buyers strike, and which would be under First-Past-The-Post as PR could not introduced without a referendum first - PR would likely be rejected if Clegg props up Brown and so demonstrates that permanent hung parliaments give rise to coalitions of the losers.
Clegg could do a deal with a Labour caretaker PM on basis that referendum on PR is put to nation within 6 months and to be immediately followed by general election under PR – however, again, not achieving a pro-tem majority without others and unlikely to satisfy markets on sufficient deficit-reduction.
Result of election, even under PR, if UK is in even deeper economic crisis would not be certain to reward Labour (or even Lib Dems significantly in short term).
Clegg doing a deal with Labour is a total non-starter - combined the Lib-Dems and Labour have much less than 326 seats, even if you factor in the Scottish/Welsh Nationalists the numbers don't stack up and their inclusion will make any colaition unwieldy. Besides that Brown is beaten and has no mandate or claim to stay as PM and the same goes for Labour as a whole.
The deal will be between the Tories and Lib-Dems, all that remains is the finer points to be negotiated - how many seats in the Cabinet will the Lib-Dems get and what role Clegg will play - my bet is Foreign Sec, and what the legislative programme will be for the next 18 months. Plus the prospect of voting reform.
My feeling is that after 18 months there'll be another election.
Best bet is to move to Brighton Pavilion because while the rest of the world chokes on an environmental apocalypse, people down there will be shielded from disaster.
Thousands of Lib Dems have spent their whole lives fighting for electoral reform. The Lib Dem constitution requires 2/3 majority of its members to vote yes for any deal to enter a coalition government. The Tories are not really offering anything new as far as electoral reform is concerned. Labour are commiting to a referendom. Unless the Tories offer more in terms of electoral reform I don't think the Lib Dem members will allow the coalition with the Tories while the offer on the table from Labour seems to offer their best chance in the last 100 years, and probably for the next 100 years, of achieving some sort of electoral reform.
Red-in-SE8...I see where you are coming from, but the Lib-Dems and Labour won't be able to command a majority in the Commons and worse it allows Cameron to play the principled loser - claiming that he refused to do a deal with Clegg over voting reform. The result will be an unpopular government that will collapse followed by another election in the autumn and that might bring a Tory majority and then we'll have a Tory government for five years.
There's more for the Lib-Dems to lose by not doing a deal with Cameron.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Clegg doing a deal with Labour is a total non-starter - combined the Lib-Dems and Labour have much less than 326 seats, even if you factor in the Scottish/Welsh Nationalists the numbers don't stack up and their inclusion will make any colaition unwieldy. Besides that Brown is beaten and has no mandate or claim to stay as PM and the same goes for Labour as a whole.
The deal will be between the Tories and Lib-Dems, all that remains is the finer points to be negotiated - how many seats in the Cabinet will the Lib-Dems get and what role Clegg will play - my bet is Foreign Sec, and what the legislative programme will be for the next 18 months. Plus the prospect of voting reform.
My feeling is that after 18 months there'll be another election.
I make you right BFR except I doubt that Clegg will be able to carry his party into a formal pact with Cameron but he'll not want to bring the Tories down in the short term so will abstain on Queens Speech to let it pass.
Question is how long a Tory minority govt will last - if they get the deficit reduction plan going the markets will like that of course but events in Europe, likely contagion in terms of bond market instability for remaining PIIGS and political ramificiations in terms of German electorate's outrage (when it dawns on it that the cheques they are writing for Greece will need to be repeated every year and to be written for some of other PIIGS in due course) are going to have an increasing and material effect upon the political dialogue across Europe, including in the UK.
Tories may struggle on for as long as possible but alternatively may consider that turmoil in Europe may represent good case to UK electorate as to why UK must have a majority govt and call a second election sooner rather than later. But Labour will have a new leader by then of course.
The Tory government will last as long as it takes for their opinion poll ratings to demonstrate that they are a safe choice and can safely win an overall majority.
That will take 18 months - by when the economy will be in better shape and they can claim with a reasonably straight face to have implemented a few reforms. An election in 2012 will also allow Cameron if he's astute enough to not have to implement any meaningful voting reforms, the longer he leaves a coalition, the more likely he'll have to adopt a system of PR and the Tory faithfull won't like that.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The Tory government will last as long as it takes for their opinion poll ratings to demonstrate that they are a safe choice and can safely win an overall majority.
That will take 18 months - by when the economy will be in better shape and they can claim with a reasonably straight face to have implemented a few reforms. An election in 2012 will also allow Cameron if he's astute enough to not have to implement any meaningful voting reforms, the longer he leaves a coalition, the more likely he'll have to adopt a system of PR and the Tory faithfull won't like that.
I know this will be anathema to many but the other factor on timing of 2nd election (if they get the choice!) is party funding - Tories are likely to replenish their funds more quickly and substantially than Labour or Lib Dems so would not want to wait too long.
Look, the point is what can the Tories actually do over the next 12-18 months to get a better electoral outcome?
The only way to appease the markets is via huge public spending cuts - some of which will have to take place in swing seats like Hendon, Swindon etc - which will prompt an electoral backlash.
Cameron is now between a rock and a hard place, Brown is all but gone and Clegg needs to walk a tightrope.
My view is that you will see a Tory minority government opposed by a far more populist Labour opposition, expect the rich and the bankers to get a real hammering.
This has to be seen as a total failure by Cameron.
He could not even gain an overall majority against one of the most unpopular governments within living memory.
The fact that he alienated his core vote by his deception over the EU has not helped him.
There are 32 seats (and counting) whereby the combined votes of UKIP and the BNP (the only two parties expressly anti EU) exceed the margin of defeat of the Conservative candidate.
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]Look, the point is what can the Tories actually do over the next 12-18 months to get a better electoral outcome?
The only way to appease the markets is via huge public spending cuts - some of which will have to take place in swing seats like Hendon, Swindon etc - which will prompt an electoral backlash.
Cameron is now between a rock and a hard place, Brown is all but gone and Clegg needs to walk a tightrope.
My view is that you will see a Tory minority government opposed by a far more populist Labour opposition, expect the rich and the bankers to get a real hammering.
Agreed but that's why Cameron could well call a 2nd election as early as October.
The markets will be happy if the Tories get their Queens Speech through but will still be uncertain of the prospects for getting the deficit down quickly enough with a minority Tory govt, so the gilt market will still be vulnerable to contagion from the growing PIIGS crisis.
That crisis is likely to grow rather than subside over the summer and the consequent impact on the European and UK banking system (which may even need another round of bailouts) on the political debate in the UK and throughout Europe may be considerable.
Without a deal with the Lib Dems now, Cameron will at some point have to risk defeat to seek a majority and a full term. The markets will provide the opportunity (possibly necessity) for him to go early, as will a funding advantage.
I wouldn’t rule out him getting a majority at that time – it’s impossible to call now - but, of course, if it were another hung parliament then surely Labour (under a new leader) & Lib Dems would form a coalition.
Factor in a collapse of the Lib Dem vote if Clegg does do a deal with Cameron - "Vote Clegg, get Cameron" will be a clear fact! Lib Dem voters are more left wing than Labour are these days, like their policies, and Clegg will be seen to have moved in his Party's interests rather than those who voted for him.
The total centre-left vote in this election (Lab + Lib Dem), was 15,432,296, and centre-right (Tories) was 10,706,647. Even giving the Tories all the UKIP & BNP votes, it only comes to 12,188,222,
If there's even a small negative shift away from Clegg as a result of a Con/Lib pakt (which I still can't see happening), combined with a fresh new Labour leader and the effect of the inevitable cuts the Tories will make, then another election in 6 months could be curtains for them.
[cite]Posted By: InCurbsWeTrusted[/cite]Factor in a collapse of the Lib Dem vote if Clegg does do a deal with Cameron - "Vote Clegg, get Cameron" will be a clear fact! Lib Dem voters are more left wing than Labour are these days, like their policies, and Clegg will be seen to have moved in his Party's interests rather than those who voted for him.
The total centre-left vote in this election (Lab + Lib Dem), was 15,432,296, and centre-right (Tories) was 10,706,647. Even giving the Tories all the UKIP & BNP votes, it only comes to 12,188,222,
If there's even a small negative shift away from Clegg as a result of a Con/Lib pakt (which I still can't see happening), combined with a fresh new Labour leader and the effect of the inevitable cuts the Tories will make, then another election in 6 months could be curtains for them.
This is a big reason why Lib Dems will be thinking hard about the deal being offered by either the dolly mix Labour option or the Conservatives. If the Lib Dems get electoral reform through, they can afford for their support to drop to around 10% without losing any seats. People say they'd be annihilated if they propped up Brown - would they get less than 10% of the vote? I doubt it. And they'll probably take a hit no matter what - they can be blamed for preventing the government from making necessary cuts, whoever the main government party is.
I have no idea how a referendum on electoral reform would go. Straight off, I would expect that Murdoch's papers would come out against it and connect it to the Lib Dems propping up Labour. But if the d'Hondt proportional electoral system was used for the election just gone, UKIP would now have 15 seats and the BNP 8, so would they be for or against electoral change? Tories would gain in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Labour 'heartlands' like the Northeast, but lose out where they're traditionally strong. Also, bear in mind that Labour and the Lib Dems between them had 52% of the popular vote. My gut reaction was that that referendum would be lost if the Conservatives campaign against it, and if the Conservatives are the only party in opposition, but now I'm not so sure.
We'll leave the England regions at that, Daggs. I don't agree with you on it, and I still don't understand your problems with what I was saying, but leave it at that.
Agreed that it was a disaster of an election for the Conservatives, all things considered.
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]Look, the point is what can the Tories actually do over the next 12-18 months to get a better electoral outcome?
The only way to appease the markets is via huge public spending cuts - some of which will have to take place in swing seats like Hendon, Swindon etc - which will prompt an electoral backlash.
Cameron is now between a rock and a hard place, Brown is all but gone and Clegg needs to walk a tightrope.
My view is that you will see a Tory minority government opposed by a far more populist Labour opposition, expect the rich and the bankers to get a real hammering.
Agreed but that's why Cameron could well call a 2nd election as early as October.
The markets will be happy if the Tories get their Queens Speech through but will still be uncertain of the prospects for getting the deficit down quickly enough with a minority Tory govt, so the gilt market will still be vulnerable to contagion from the growing PIIGS crisis.
That crisis is likely to grow rather than subside over the summer and the consequent impact on the European and UK banking system (which may even need another round of bailouts) on the political debate in the UK and throughout Europe may be considerable.
Without a deal with the Lib Dems now, Cameron will at some point have to risk defeat to seek a majority and a full term. The markets will provide the opportunity (possibly necessity) for him to go early, as will a funding advantage.
I wouldn’t rule out him getting a majority at that time – it’s impossible to call now - but, of course, if it were another hung parliament then surely Labour (under a new leader) & Lib Dems would form a coalition.
Excellent analysis Peanuts, I still don't see the Tories doing better in 12 months than they did just now, this was their best shot and they could not take it.
Of course, as Harold Macmillan once famously replied when asked by a reporter what would be most likely to blow his government off course, "Events dear boy, events."
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite] .......as Harold Macmillan once famously replied when asked by a reporter what would be most likely to blow his government off course, "Events dear boy, events."
Indeed OA
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite] Agreed but that's why Cameron could well call a 2nd election as early as October.
The markets will be happy if the Tories get their Queens Speech through but will still be uncertain of the prospects for getting the deficit down quickly enough with a minority Tory govt, so the gilt market will still be vulnerable to contagion from the growing PIIGS crisis.
That crisis is likely to grow rather than subside over the summer and the consequent impact on the European and UK banking system (which may even need another round of bailouts) on the political debate in the UK and throughout Europe may be considerable.
Given old Gordy's propensity for plagiarising others' speeches, perhaps he should re-use Reginald Maudling's comments as out-going Chancellor to Jim Callaghan after the Tories had lost the 1974 election:
[cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]Given old Gordy's propensity for plagiarising others' speeches, perhaps he should re-use Reginald Maudling's comments as out-going Chancellor to Jim Callaghan after the Tories had lost the 1974 election:
"Sorry old cock to leave it in this shape."
Why would he? Gordon saved the world, was a fantastic chancellor and everything we're about to see will be down to Americans, bankers and the cut loving Tories. The sad thing is most people in this country believe it.
Comments
The UK has changed politically over the last thirteen years. It is now, not what it was.
A new Federal UK could be formed if mainstrean politicians find the will to do so.
If they don't, the UK may well cease to exist. Many Scots now want independence. A proportion of Welsh too. If England doesn't get political recognition soon. We may drift toward Independence.
The Tories gained no Scottish ground in the election. They started with one seat, today they have one seat. They are very much seen as English toffs suppresing Scotland. They are hated there. If by some miracle this changed, it would make no difference to our campaign for England to have equality within a Federal UK. The Tories currently support the unfair asymmetric Devolution settlement.
The debate over who puts most into the UK pot rages now. It makes no difference. Our campaign is about justice, fairness, equality and democracy for the people of England.
The fact is England is disadvantaged in the current set-up.
Listen to politicians speak, they never speak of England politically, only "our country" or "this country" this is to mantain the blur between Britain, UK and England. When they speak on policy for Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland they say so. But England is never mentioned.
Furthermore, the EU has already released some draft ideas for new Euro-regions. These involve chopping England into nine regions. But of course there is no plan to chop up Wales or Scotland. Whilst England remains New Labours "regions" the country is in danger. England is a proud and historic country, it is often said to be the home of Democracy. Let's keep it that way.
Nice soundbite, but why? Clearly all of the English regions are still English, but it's about governing them more effectively at a more local level. One that keeps the country together, something you don't seem concerned about.
In Scotland in this election, the Conservatives got 16.7% of the vote, compared to the SNP's 19.9%. They lose out in Scotland because of First Past The Post.
Why would you chop Scotland or Wales into regions? I already said they're smaller than many reasonable English regions
1. Lib Dems will not agree coalition or formal pact with Tories (in fact this will suit both parties providing both leaderships have been seen by electorate to have been trying to work in national interest)
2. Clegg will NOT do a deal with Brown or a caretaker PM that has not been voted in by electorate
3. Therefore there will be a minority Tory govt
4. Tory’s Queen Speech will pass on 25 May probably with Lib Dems abstaining (or with informal support if Clegg thinks that looks better to the electorate)
5. Labour will replace Brown
6. At some point in the autumn there will be a second general election. This will suit all parties, because:
• Tories will figure that they have to get a majority to gain power for full term (and that best chance of getting one if they go early on a national interest claim)
• Labour will have an electable leader acceptable to electorate or at worst acceptable to the Lib Dems if another hung parliament
• Lib Dems’ best chance of getting electoral reform in coalition with Labour
• Airman will lose again…………..sorry Airman
Labour watered down with a lotof Lib dem + any other tom dick and harry.
COMPLETE ******* DISASTER!!!!
Nice soundbite, but why? Clearly all of the English regions are still English, but it's about governing them more effectively at a more local level. One that keeps the country together, something you don't seem concerned about.
In Scotland in this election, the Conservatives got 16.7% of the vote, compared to the SNP's 19.9%. They lose out in Scotland because of First Past The Post.
Why would you chop Scotland or Wales into regions? I already said they're smaller than many reasonable English regions[/quote]
You're not following. I would not wish to see Wales and Scotland regionalised, just as i won't standby and see England chopped up.
You seem to believe i 'hold a torch' for the Tories. I dislike them as much as i dislike New Labour and the Lib Dems. They all support asymmetric Devolution. They all deny England, politically.
All i want is for England to be treated equally to the other three nations of the (once)United Kingdom. Regional government of England should be subsidary to an English Parliament not to the EU. The very thing you accuse me of not being concerned about is 'keeping the country together' It's exactly what we aim to do.
Anyway, i spent hours at this keyboard yesterday putting the case for an English Parliament. I've already spent a couple of hours here today. You either agree with the problem as i have explained or you don't. If you wish to find out more, search the 'English Democrats' or 'Campaign for an English Parliament' Right now i have some work to do to ensure i'm free to watch Sky Sports News and follow Charlton Life match thread this afternoon. So i'm off now until about 3pm.
COYA
This was supposed to be their "Tony Blair 1997" moment when they swept back to power after 13 years in the wilderness and yet when you look at the cold figures below you see that their performance has been abysmal when placed in the context of the worst recession in living memory and that they were campaigning against Gordon Brown who is a about as popular as an Hassidic Jew in Regents Park Mosque and has the charisma of Dr. Harold Shipman.
Look at the figures below contrasting Labour's 1997 election win compared to the Tories this year....
2010 Election - Total Seats
Tories - 306 (+97)
Labour - 258 (-91)
Lib Dems - 57 (-5)
2010 Election % of Vote
Tories - 36.1% (+3.8%)
Labour - 29% (-6.2%)
Lib Dems - 23% (+1.0%)
1997 Election Total Seats
Tories - 165 (-178)
Labour - 418 (+147)
Lib Dems - 46 (+28)
1997 Election % of Vote
Tories - 30.7% (-11.2%)
Labour - 43.2% (+8.8%)
Lib Dems - 16.8% (-1.0%)
They are amazing figures, the Tories increased their % of the vote by just 3.8% between 2005-2010 compared to Labour's 8.8% between 1992-1997.
Labour picked up a staggering 147 seats in 1997 compared to the Tories 97 in this election.
But the KEY figure is that Labour - not withstanding any PR changes that may come in - has emerged with a very respectable 258 seats from this election - just 48 behind the Tories - compared to the mere 165 seats the Tories captured in 1997 which left them an incredible 253 seats behind Labour!!!
What this means politically is that Labour has established a very useful bridge-head to regain power within a relatively short space of time (maybe 5 or 6 years) compared to the 13 years that the Tories were out of power.
After all, going from 165 seats to 326 seats is a massive mountain to climb - which is partly why the Tories failed to get to 326 this time - whereas going from 258 to 326 is nowhere near as difficult.
Sure, Brown will have to step down regardless, but I think most Labour folk will feel that they have really dodged a bullet and might prefer a spell in opposition leaving Cameron to take the flak for the inevitable cuts and then to have a new run under a new leader (probably David Milliband) once the Tory minority government falls.
The best thing for Labour is that any Tory-Lib coalition won't be able to go anywhere near any actual Tory policies like the inheritance tax cut or anything anti-Europe because the Lib Dems will not stand for it because they know if they did then they would really piss off their core vote and drive them to Labour.
The way this result has panned out is a disaster for Cameron, it leaves him in power but totally powerless unless he gets the support of the Lib Dems with whom the Tories agree on practically nothing.
If the Tories could not win a sweeping 350+ seats in this election and in these circumstances then we can say that the electoral face of Britain has changed significantly and that we may not see a majority Tory government for a very long time if ever.
For those who say that the Tories would "easily win" a majority in another election this year then I am afraid that is very much wishful thinking! They had money to burn, the support of 85% of the press, a hapless opponent, an awful recession and had been out of power for 13 years - why would things be any different if we did it all again in 8/9 months?
Not an option, unless Clegg wants to commit political suicide - would be an unstable coaltiion dependent for a majority on the Scot Nats and propping up Brown would drive conservative-minded Lib Dems back to theTories at the next election, which would be before year end, forced by a collapse in £ and a gilt buyers strike, and which would be under First-Past-The-Post as PR could not introduced without a referendum first - PR would likely be rejected if Clegg props up Brown and so demonstrates that permanent hung parliaments give rise to coalitions of the losers.
Clegg could do a deal with a Labour caretaker PM on basis that referendum on PR is put to nation within 6 months and to be immediately followed by general election under PR – however, again, not achieving a pro-tem majority without others and unlikely to satisfy markets on sufficient deficit-reduction.
Result of election, even under PR, if UK is in even deeper economic crisis would not be certain to reward Labour (or even Lib Dems significantly in short term).
The deal will be between the Tories and Lib-Dems, all that remains is the finer points to be negotiated - how many seats in the Cabinet will the Lib-Dems get and what role Clegg will play - my bet is Foreign Sec, and what the legislative programme will be for the next 18 months. Plus the prospect of voting reform.
My feeling is that after 18 months there'll be another election.
There's more for the Lib-Dems to lose by not doing a deal with Cameron.
I make you right BFR except I doubt that Clegg will be able to carry his party into a formal pact with Cameron but he'll not want to bring the Tories down in the short term so will abstain on Queens Speech to let it pass.
Question is how long a Tory minority govt will last - if they get the deficit reduction plan going the markets will like that of course but events in Europe, likely contagion in terms of bond market instability for remaining PIIGS and political ramificiations in terms of German electorate's outrage (when it dawns on it that the cheques they are writing for Greece will need to be repeated every year and to be written for some of other PIIGS in due course) are going to have an increasing and material effect upon the political dialogue across Europe, including in the UK.
Tories may struggle on for as long as possible but alternatively may consider that turmoil in Europe may represent good case to UK electorate as to why UK must have a majority govt and call a second election sooner rather than later. But Labour will have a new leader by then of course.
That will take 18 months - by when the economy will be in better shape and they can claim with a reasonably straight face to have implemented a few reforms. An election in 2012 will also allow Cameron if he's astute enough to not have to implement any meaningful voting reforms, the longer he leaves a coalition, the more likely he'll have to adopt a system of PR and the Tory faithfull won't like that.
I know this will be anathema to many but the other factor on timing of 2nd election (if they get the choice!) is party funding - Tories are likely to replenish their funds more quickly and substantially than Labour or Lib Dems so would not want to wait too long.
The only way to appease the markets is via huge public spending cuts - some of which will have to take place in swing seats like Hendon, Swindon etc - which will prompt an electoral backlash.
Cameron is now between a rock and a hard place, Brown is all but gone and Clegg needs to walk a tightrope.
My view is that you will see a Tory minority government opposed by a far more populist Labour opposition, expect the rich and the bankers to get a real hammering.
He could not even gain an overall majority against one of the most unpopular governments within living memory.
The fact that he alienated his core vote by his deception over the EU has not helped him.
There are 32 seats (and counting) whereby the combined votes of UKIP and the BNP (the only two parties expressly anti EU) exceed the margin of defeat of the Conservative candidate.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/05/ukip-effect-full-list.html
Agreed but that's why Cameron could well call a 2nd election as early as October.
The markets will be happy if the Tories get their Queens Speech through but will still be uncertain of the prospects for getting the deficit down quickly enough with a minority Tory govt, so the gilt market will still be vulnerable to contagion from the growing PIIGS crisis.
That crisis is likely to grow rather than subside over the summer and the consequent impact on the European and UK banking system (which may even need another round of bailouts) on the political debate in the UK and throughout Europe may be considerable.
Without a deal with the Lib Dems now, Cameron will at some point have to risk defeat to seek a majority and a full term. The markets will provide the opportunity (possibly necessity) for him to go early, as will a funding advantage.
I wouldn’t rule out him getting a majority at that time – it’s impossible to call now - but, of course, if it were another hung parliament then surely Labour (under a new leader) & Lib Dems would form a coalition.
The total centre-left vote in this election (Lab + Lib Dem), was 15,432,296, and centre-right (Tories) was 10,706,647. Even giving the Tories all the UKIP & BNP votes, it only comes to 12,188,222,
If there's even a small negative shift away from Clegg as a result of a Con/Lib pakt (which I still can't see happening), combined with a fresh new Labour leader and the effect of the inevitable cuts the Tories will make, then another election in 6 months could be curtains for them.
This is a big reason why Lib Dems will be thinking hard about the deal being offered by either the dolly mix Labour option or the Conservatives. If the Lib Dems get electoral reform through, they can afford for their support to drop to around 10% without losing any seats. People say they'd be annihilated if they propped up Brown - would they get less than 10% of the vote? I doubt it. And they'll probably take a hit no matter what - they can be blamed for preventing the government from making necessary cuts, whoever the main government party is.
I have no idea how a referendum on electoral reform would go. Straight off, I would expect that Murdoch's papers would come out against it and connect it to the Lib Dems propping up Labour. But if the d'Hondt proportional electoral system was used for the election just gone, UKIP would now have 15 seats and the BNP 8, so would they be for or against electoral change? Tories would gain in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Labour 'heartlands' like the Northeast, but lose out where they're traditionally strong. Also, bear in mind that Labour and the Lib Dems between them had 52% of the popular vote. My gut reaction was that that referendum would be lost if the Conservatives campaign against it, and if the Conservatives are the only party in opposition, but now I'm not so sure.
We'll leave the England regions at that, Daggs. I don't agree with you on it, and I still don't understand your problems with what I was saying, but leave it at that.
Agreed that it was a disaster of an election for the Conservatives, all things considered.
Excellent analysis Peanuts, I still don't see the Tories doing better in 12 months than they did just now, this was their best shot and they could not take it.
Of course, as Harold Macmillan once famously replied when asked by a reporter what would be most likely to blow his government off course, "Events dear boy, events."
Indeed OA
And so it begins.......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/7696870/British-taxpayers-ordered-to-bail-out-euro.html
"Sorry old cock to leave it in this shape."
Why would he? Gordon saved the world, was a fantastic chancellor and everything we're about to see will be down to Americans, bankers and the cut loving Tories. The sad thing is most people in this country believe it.