It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2010 @ 08:21 AM
Did anyone see the Jeremy Paxman interview with Jack Dromey. Talk about being deluded. How anyone can vote for moronic idiots like this is beyond me. Not an single honest bone in his body. He must be living in a parallel universe.
Then again most Labours MP's and some of their supporters are.

Was Jack Dromey at the same election as the rest of us?

No one could ever accuse Jack Dromey, the new MP for Birmingham Erdington, of being anything other than one of Labour's loyal footsoldiers.
That, presumably, is why he was rewarded with a safe seat.
The fact that he is married to Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman, and is the leader of one of the country's largest trade unions obviously helped too.

When Mr Dromey arrived at the election count, he came accompanied by what the spin doctors call "a line". The first thing he said to me, before his result was declared, in fact before any results anywhere in the country were declared, was that the election had turned out to be disastrous for the Conservatives. This piece of intelligence was based on an exit poll and had presumably been relayed to Mr Dromey by Labour strategists.

His explanation for claiming that things were going so badly for David Cameron was that, several months ago, the Tory leader was way ahead of Gordon Brown and Labour in the opinion polls and therefore the predicted 38 per cent support from voters for the Tories was very poor and amounted to support for Labour, who after all had been in office for 13 years.

Four hours later, Mr Dromey was trotting out the same spin.
Twenty-four hours later, his view of events had changed not a jot, even though events hardly bore out what he was saying.

Interviewed by Jeremy Paxman for the BBC, Mr Dromey could only repeat parrot-fashion his claim of a disastrous Tory performance, even though it was pointed out to him that the Conservatives gained two million more votes than Labour and that Labour support, at 30 per cent, was only marginally better than that achieved by Michael Foot in 1983.
Paxman, for once, was almost lost for words at such chutzpah, although he did manage a customary sneer. You have to wonder whether Mr Dromey was at the same election as the rest of us.

Verbatim:Interview LOL

Paxman: What do you think of this idea of some sort of accommodation between your Party and the LibDems?
Dromey: Well the electorate have spoken. What they want is stable government, what they do not want is a Conservative government. What's extraordinary about the results last night is that the big losers are the Conservative Party. We have been in power for 13yrs; we've had the worst economic global crisis for a hundred years; we've had the Tories pouring Ashcroft's money into the marginals to try and buy seats. They were, the Conservative Party, 24% ahead in the polls yet they have failed to gain a majority in the House of Commons.
Paxman: They've got two million more votes than you did!
Dromey: The country does not want a Conservative government, what it expects now...
Paxman: [interrupting] Two million more people want it than want a Labour government, apparently.
Dromey: Yes, but they, the country wants stable government, progressive government, fair government. It does not want a Conservative government.
Paxman: Well why did more people vote for it?
Dromey: The verdict of the country is clear... [cutaway to shot of Paxman laughing and shaking his head] ... if this was a Conservative country, and it is not a Conservative country, the Conservatives would have won a majority. The big losers are the Conservative Party.
Paxman: The Conservatives got more votes than Tony Blair got in one of the elections.
Dromey: The Conservatives have not succeeded in winning a majority in Parliament
Paxman: Well, thank you for stating the blindingly obvious.
Dromey: The electorate does not want a Conservative government. The last thing at a time like this that the country needs is a Conservative government, not least because with their plans, Jeremy, for an emergency budget in 60 days, they'd make huge cuts and plunge Britain... [interrupted]
Paxman: Let's be clear about this: what they've really said is they want a minority government led by an unpopular Prime Minister who has failed to win an election propped up by a Party in third place? That's what the people of Britain really want is it?
Dromey: Discussions will now need to take place [cutaway to Paxman laughing his socks off] as to how we can deliver stable government in difficult times for the people of Britain. The outcome must not be, however, a Conservative government. And the Liberals are going to have to reflect upon this: do they really want to get into bed with David Cameron because you've only got to come here to Birmingham to see what's happened as a consequence of a Conservative/Libdem alliance in the Council cutting 2,000 jobs, services to the community. As a consequence, in Birmingham, the Conservatives did not make gains.
Paxman: Okay, I think we've understood you. Thank you very much, Jack Dromey.

I think we all understand the Labour Party and the likes of Gordon Brown and Jack Dromey by now. I may need that sick bucket after all.

Peter Mandelson's Neuro Linguistic Programming is obviously working well

[edit on 9-5-2010 by kindred]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by kindred

He's got a point. In the fact that in the worst financial crisis ever, the most unpopular PM ever...the blue b******* couldn't even win a majority. How crap is Cameron?

Cameron should GTF, he's made a mess of this election, so should 57 seat Clegg. How bad a result was that, woeful. And to think this little git will define the nations next government.

Strangely enough, GB is the only guy who should come out with any credibility. His party should have been gubbed into non existence by the electorate, but they didn't. Murdochs media only have one agenda and the beeb have been waiting to stick the knife in after the Hutton inquiry.

He's done quite well considering the English media have been out to get him from just abut the start.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Knobby

I really believe that the apparently ridiculous situation we have experienced at this election - the fact the Brown is apparently so unpopular and the Labour government's poor performance over the last 13 years so obvious - is down to 'generational experience'.

Many people who voted in this election have never known anything but a Labour 'spin' government, they have no idea what 'real' electoral politics is actually like. I would be interested to see an analysis of the votes by age; my guess is that a huge number of votes for Labour were achieved in the younger age groups.

The Conservatives do have an issue in connecting with younger generations and I have heard younger people boldly stating prejudices against the Conservatives even though they were still scuffing their knees in the primary school playground when the Tories were last in power.

This has caused a major problem; Labour 'de facto society' (as opposed to the party and government itself and the attempts to engineer society) is perhaps seen as more egalitarian and so wins a vote from youth since they perceive the Conservatives to represent the interests of business and an older generation that does not reflect their own interests.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by SugarCube]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:03 AM
It would appear that the Conservatives are unwilling to give the Lib-Dems the referendum on electoral reform that they and the country wants. whereas Labour will allow the referendum.

As such, A Lib-Dem / Tory coalition is unlikely. Expect talks to fail. If we don't hear by tonight, you will know talks are in trouble (because they want to reach an agreement quickly to stabilize the Monday money markets.)

I predict a coalition between Lib-Dem, Labour, SNP and Claid Cymru, and then a referendum on PR. Change we can believe in, and not before time.

I remain tentatively optimistic.

On another note, Dromney makes a fair point: The country does not want another Tory government, even after 12 odd years of crap New Labour. People remember what Thatcher did to the country, ripping the guts out of it via privatization, selling off our resources cheap to the wealthy. Blair simply continued Thacher's policies. People do not want more of the same. We need electoral reform and and an escape from two party red / blue lock-in.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by rizla]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by SugarCube

I think I would have to disagree with just about everything you just said.

I'd have thought that the youngsters would pick up on the dis-satisfaction of their elders and vote appropriately.

I may be wrong, but that's what I felt when I were a lad.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:23 AM
Yeah worst financial crisis ever, made worse by Gordon Brown who has no credibility and now squats in 10 downing street like some desperado holding onto power.

As for Cameron, he hasn't been made PM yet, so how can he be the worst PM ever.
The trouble with this country is the all the benefit scroungers and immigrants voted Labour simply to secure their benefits. They fear Cameron because he's going to overhaul the benefits system and make people work for it. Whether you like it or not Cameron will be PM and I can't see him doing a worse job than Brown & co.

How anyone can say that this country doesn't want a Tory gov when they won more votes than New Labour. The truth is that they sure as hell don't want a New Labour gov and don't particularly want a Tory gov either, but they are the lesser of the three evils, so will have to suffice until something better comes along.

Please don't talk to me about referendums, if you hadn't noticed Gordon Brown doesn't do referendums and it was Gordon Brown who tried to block political reform until he caved into political pressure.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by kindred]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by rizla

The only issue I have is will the Lib-Dems beleive Labour's promises of a referendum! Given how Labour have failed to keep their own manifesto promises on other referendums..

That could really taint how Lib-dems view this promise, and it seems (to me anyway) the Lib-Dems will dammed either way..

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by Knobby

I hear what you're saying Knobby, but do youngsters vote on the basis of their elders' beliefs? I don't know, I never did but then again I swing between the extremes of being an ultra-right fascist on one hand and a left-wing pinko socialist on the other, depending on how my day is going!

Personally, I think that 'young adults' have it pretty good and so I am not sure that they have much association with the main issues facing the country. Debt was something of a social stigma when I was younger but now it is the norm so I could understand if youngsters look at national debt and say 'so what'?

I remember buying a house for £40,000 so when I look at house prices now I am aghast, but if you've only ever know such prices you're less likely to focus on the same issues. That is to say, younger people are complaining about the lack of 'starter homes' available rather than the general market over-inflation which they see as a norm having known nothing else.

Again, I have suspicions about the party voting ages but I would be happy to see these suspicions proven wrong by clear analysis of the actual statistics.

Rizla - on your points, I honestly believe that if the LibDems go with Labour they will damage their reputation for the next 15 years at least, their cause ill go down the pan along with any Labour government (i.e. change of PM) they try to prop-up. Also, the markets will respond very negatively, we will be plunged into an abyss.

Just remember that in reality, there are a good few years to implement electoral reform since this is only really an issue during general elections. If a Conservative/LibDem alliance (not coalition!) can be promoted, it would provide the best chance for the LibDems to maintain a professional image and achieve their objectives. To squander this chance on the need for a promise for the introduction of PR would be madness and if pushed, would simply demonstrate that the LibDems are not ready for power.

Put it this way, if you've lost your job and you're about to have your house repossessed, letting your children have an equal say in where you end up living is probably not high on the list. The fact is this is a 'nice to have' when you're not facing the worst economic crisis since WWII.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by SugarCube]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:31 AM
This election result shows that the country is sick of both New Labour and Conservative. Finally, the voters realize they are the same. They want electoral reform.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by SugarCube

Just remember that in reality, there are a good few years to implement electoral reform since this is only really an issue during general elections. If a Conservative/LibDem alliance (not coalition!) can be promoted, it would provide the best chance for the LibDems to maintain a professional image and achieve their objectives. To squander this chance on the need for a promise for the introduction of PR would be madness and if pushed, would simply demonstrate that the LibDems are not ready for power.

You're right about house price inflation. Don't forget they are a direct result Thatcherite privatization (i.e. selling off cheap) of nationally owned houses and the lowering of the interest rate. Only the banks have ultimately profited. Money for nothing...

Re: waiting for PR, I totally disagree. It is now or never. If the Lib-Dems hold off on their demands for PR, they will never get it. Chaos is better than more decay. Things must change, now.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by rizla

What do you mean by 'electoral reform'? If we take the top 10 party votes we have the following distribution of the total vote and the respective proportion of seats that would relate to:

Traditional Unionist Voice 0.1% 1
Respect-Unity Coalition 0.1% 1
Alliance Party 0.1% 1
English Democrats 0.2% 1
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force 0.3% 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party 0.4% 2
Plaid Cymru 0.6% 4
Democratic Unionist Party 0.6% 4
Sinn Fein 0.6% 4
Green 1.0% 6
Others 1.1% 7
Scottish National Party 1.7% 11
British National Party 1.9% 12
UK Independence Party 3.1% 20
Liberal Democrat 23.0% 150
Labour 29.0% 189
Conservative 36.1% 235

However, this does not reflect the voting weights for each individual seat, but a proportion of the voting population as a whole.

Now this is the simplest form of 'PR' and would give the Conservatives the majority share. However, this would have to be combined with 'whip' activities to produce majority voting on bills or via individual conscience.

PR has to be carefully considered. Are people comfortable with the figures shown above? Also, who do the MP represent in terms of local constituencies? Are we saying that there should be another 'house' which represents geographic seats and the other which represents proportional representation?

Balancing geographic constituencies against party national party following is quiet a difficult thing to do without introducing different levels of representation.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:03 PM
If the election had been held under the MMP system parliament would have looked very different.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by SugarCube

You echo my concerns about constituency representation etc.

I think the power of recall is a necessity but I am not sure how it would work under such a system.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

The other issue is that the proportional representations in the 'best case scenario' still do not affect the power of the three main parties to collude between themselves to achieve majorities if acting under the orders of 'whips'.

Although relevant in terms of pure democracy, in most cases the smaller '7' parties would have no affect on outcome since in this scenario, the block vote of each of the 3 top parties would always achieve a majority if concessions with one of the others could attract their support.

As such, although the ultimate 'democracy' representation produces some interesting new MPs, in effect they can achieve absolutely nothing - trying to get agreement between 3 parties is one thing, trying it between 10 is something else!

Do we want 76 MPs in parliament who simply get paid for doing bugger all (I know, I know... 'don't they all'...) Anyhoo, as Freeborn points out, how do these MPs represent constituencies? Should they be 'awarded' seats? If so, what if your constituency had an MP allocated to it who had absolutely no support in terms of the local population?

Should those allocations be based on local PR? Well, if so, then there are not enough Conservatives to go around from the figures above and the actual results of the election, so we have a shortfall of some (306-235) 71 seats that have to be filled with alternative party MPs who were not actually voted for in the regional sense. LibDems? Where are all those LibDem MPs going to sit now since only 15 constituencies voted for local LibDem representation. This is even before we have to place the UKIP and BNP MPs who would have 11 and 12 seats respectively.

Local constituencies could be allocated on a majority vote share, repating for each party until all the votes are accounted for, but this would leave some single seat MPs being allocated to areas where nobody voted for them at all!

PR has many many issues associated with it and there needs to be a long consultation process before anything is implemented. Suggesting that it needs to be implemented "now" is to ignore the reality of what true PR really means. Can we change the whole of parliamentary democracy in the course of a single term or even less?

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by SugarCube

I truly believe that the Party Politics system has failed us and party alignement within parliament should not be allowed.
Prospective MP's stand on their on manifsto, vote according to their conscience and / or their constituents best interest.
The power of recall in such instances would be a powerful tool for the electorate.

I believe we should have increased use of referendums on both local and national issues.

But, as with all the different types of PR, there are still lots of questions to be answered.

Who would elect / select The Prime Minister and The Cabinet, essential for strong and effective leadership?
Who would select subjects under discussion and to be voted on etc and how etc?

There are many such questions.

Electoral and Parliamentary reform are essential if we are to get fair and representative yet effective government.
There are many electoral methods and all should be studied and given careful consideration before any decision is made.

Who, how and when etc is beyond me!

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:11 PM
Shame i never saw that paxman interview, labour should get teh feck out, they are a disgrace to human beings, never right morons.

Blair should be in jail with mandelson and brown.

Amazing how labour want to stay in, scum the people voted against you.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by andy1033

Amazing how labour want to stay in, scum the people voted against you.

No, the people voted against all the parties.

We're got a hung parliment, don't you get it?

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by SugarCube
Liberal Democrat 23.0% 150
Labour 29.0% 189
Conservative 36.1% 235

Where the Lib-dems only got 60 seats (10 % of seats) but had 23% of the vote, something is seriously wrong. I'm not sure what form of PR is correct. I suppose we should look at other forms of established PR in other countries and base it on that.

But obviously the FPTP system is a disaster. See politics since Thatcher.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by rizla]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by rizla

I voted Lib-Dem (have done for quite a while) not for the Lib-Dem manifesto but becuase the local MP, Norman Baker cares about his consituency, and is an honest/decent guy..

I feel/fear this will be lost in PR.. as it appears to me local views are sidelined for the party line... which makes voting utterly pointless to me..

I for one would do away with the party line, and the whip but hang onto the FPTP system.. IMHO those are the things that have destroyed our political system...

Tho I really doubt even those changes are deep enough to fix this broken system while I also don't feel simply changing to PR will make much difference to the party politics that is shoved down our throats.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by rizla

I for one would do away with the party line, and the whip but hang onto the FPTP system.. IMHO those are the things that have destroyed our political system...

But who decides who runs the show?

The nuts and bolts of government must go on.

It's not quite as easy as first thought.

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in