UK politics - Hamsterwheel
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
True. But would it have been any different if it had been Labour trying to do a deal with the DUP. Or, god forbid, the SNP? Of course not.
Look lively mate! I said earlier in the thread that I'm sure Labour would have done the same.
True. But would it have been any different if it had been Labour trying to do a deal with the DUP. Or, god forbid, the SNP? Of course not.
Look lively mate! I said earlier in the thread that I'm sure Labour would have done the same.
In 2010, Gordon tried to cobble together a coalition before resigning but did not have the numbers.
It's no good the SNP carping about this, they could have had a similar deal if they were willing to do a confidence and supply deal. Delivering 35 MPs may have got them a bigger "bung" if that's what it is.
Well in just about every single country which uses PR instead of FPTP then coalition building is the norm with almost all the deals being done in "smoke filled rooms". I would suspect many of those who are holding up their hands in hypocritical horror voted in favour of PR during the previous referendum - which they lost.
What referendum on PR? The 2011 referendum offered a choice between first past the post (FPTP), the status quo, and the alternative vote (AV) a preferential majoritarian system.
The stupidity of this was the fact that neither coalition party wanted AV and nor did the public as it turned out. What a waste of public money!
My hope is that a new Centrist force forms out of nowhere, people flock to it in droves and these two maniacs are denied power forever.
BTW France uses first past the post (FPTP). If the first placed candidate doesn't have 50% or more of the votes cast, there is a second round (also FPTP) with just the first and second placed candidates.
I am old enough to have seen governments of both sides and none have even remotely impressed me. Little better than enthusiastic amateurs so I do struggle to understand why some seem to worship them.
This means being old enough to remember the antics of Comrade Corbyn and his middle class boleshevik friends and the entryists and carpetbaggers of "militant", who ruined Labour's prospects and kept the awful Thatcher in power for much longer than she deserved.
That is a crime against humanity that should not be forgiven or forgotten.
Me too. I've long felt that a strong centrist party would be a very good thing for the country, balancing the need for social care with the needs of business, without the inherent risks of a right wing government that cares little for people on low incomes, or a left wing government that would not be able to run a coherent economy.
Been tried before, it was called the SDP, run by David ("Dr Death") Owen and his gang of four.
Great success story that turned out to be: a maximum of 22 MPs in parliament, all the results of defections in 1981, all lost again in the 1983 election. The SDP never won more than 5 seats at an election. Did better than the Greens and UKIP.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,270
Originally Posted by VP959
Me too. I've long felt that a strong centrist party would be a very good thing for the country, balancing the need for social care with the needs of business, without the inherent risks of a right wing government that cares little for people on low incomes, or a left wing government that would not be able to run a coherent economy.
Not sure what the point of another one would be.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,192
Originally Posted by Jet II
The whole point of the Good Friday Agreement was to make power sharing with the likes of the DUP acceptable.
What has changed?
What has changed?
Meanwhile, here's the reality of life in the UK, reality in the real world that is, not the JB cocoon where social mobility is perceived as having the top of the range BMW / Jaguar / Merc / Landy or Audi, and, even worse, some readers will be shocked to learn, this being the Guardian, the article contains criticism of Labour !......
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...y-report-finds
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,854
Fairdealfrank.
The SDP saw the gap for a centre party between Thatcher on the one hand and Foot on the other and were well placed to fill it once they split from Labour. All the polls showed them as ahead, then the Falklands War happened and Maggie got her surge in support.
In the election the SDP got only 1.5% less of the vote than Labour, but spread over the country whilst Labour and the Conservatives dominated regionally in their heartlands. Under FPTP they were then doomed.
Which is why the centrist Labour backbencher won't split and move to the Cooperative Party- the same thing would happen. It would merely split the Labour vote and put the Conservatives in power for a generation - which is what happened the last time.
The SDP saw the gap for a centre party between Thatcher on the one hand and Foot on the other and were well placed to fill it once they split from Labour. All the polls showed them as ahead, then the Falklands War happened and Maggie got her surge in support.
In the election the SDP got only 1.5% less of the vote than Labour, but spread over the country whilst Labour and the Conservatives dominated regionally in their heartlands. Under FPTP they were then doomed.
Which is why the centrist Labour backbencher won't split and move to the Cooperative Party- the same thing would happen. It would merely split the Labour vote and put the Conservatives in power for a generation - which is what happened the last time.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by Jet II
we have had two centrist Party's swapping power since WW2 - when Labour flirt with Socialism (1983, 2017) they fail to win and when the Tories move to far right they fail to win (2001, 2005).
Not sure what the point of another one would be.
Not sure what the point of another one would be.
The closest we've had to a centrist government was arguably Blair's.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Tankertrashnav
Minority governments, coalitions and the like are the norm in The Netherlands and yet the country seems to get on ok.
Tightgit
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The artist formerly known as john du'pruyting
Age: 63
Posts: 791
Andy S (you're not me are you)?
Horse trading does go on in a coalition, true. But it also goes on inside a single party majority government. The reason that Cameron called the referendum on EU membership, when he was apparently dead against leaving was horse trading with the Anti-EU side of the conservative party. Not a lot different from the horse trading with the Lib Dems, to allow a referendum on The AV system (again, Cameron had no real wish to dispense with FPTP), during the coalition government.
Horse trading does go on in a coalition, true. But it also goes on inside a single party majority government. The reason that Cameron called the referendum on EU membership, when he was apparently dead against leaving was horse trading with the Anti-EU side of the conservative party. Not a lot different from the horse trading with the Lib Dems, to allow a referendum on The AV system (again, Cameron had no real wish to dispense with FPTP), during the coalition government.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,140
Problem with FPTP is that you will be stuck with the same two parties for centuries to come (unless Macron crosses the Channel) which leaves little room for progress, new ideas, different approaches, and anything else than black or white politics.
I prefer coalitions as it means that no left- or right-wing approach is taken, but usually some middle of the road solution which, in general, is acceptable to a fairly large part of the electorate and not prone to a 180° reversal after a change of goverment.
I also prefer a mixture of MPs elected directly in constituencies and and MPs voted through a list. It makes sure that not only court jesters, loudmouths and serial huggers are elected just because they are able to charm or entertain the constituents, but also experts and lateral entrants to the political circus.
I prefer coalitions as it means that no left- or right-wing approach is taken, but usually some middle of the road solution which, in general, is acceptable to a fairly large part of the electorate and not prone to a 180° reversal after a change of goverment.
I also prefer a mixture of MPs elected directly in constituencies and and MPs voted through a list. It makes sure that not only court jesters, loudmouths and serial huggers are elected just because they are able to charm or entertain the constituents, but also experts and lateral entrants to the political circus.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 70
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by VP959
What about Thatcher? Probably the most right wing government in my life time, and she managed to give a thoroughly good kicking to all those on low incomes that we are still feeling today. Her reign (and it was a reign - the bloody woman seemed to think she was the monarch) from May 1979 to November 1990, irrevocably damaged the hopes of many ordinary people, creating an environment where employers could return to employment policies from 200 years ago. Even after she was forced out, Major continued with her general policy strategy for the next year or two, only gradually shifting a bit before the 1997 General Election.
The closest we've had to a centrist government was arguably Blair's.
The closest we've had to a centrist government was arguably Blair's.
There ought to be the equivalent of a "Godwins Law" for those who bring up Thatcher at every turn. They are like the forty a day, Capstan Full Strength smoker, who blames the surgeon for cutting out half his lungs.
Meanwhile, the Labour Luminary (three watt fridge bulb version) are strangely silent about the roaring "success" of the Great Venezuelan Socialist experiment. Corbyn, Jones et al were praising it to the rooftops not that long ago.
But the slates are now off the roof, and the poor are getting drenched. That is Labours model for the UK economy, but the glue they are planning to use just isn't up to it.
A Corbyn worshipping friend has recently moved into her €1,000,000, recently renovated farmhouse here without ensuring that her oven and hob was working and has been living on take-away pizzas for a few days. Socialist planning, eh!
My wife has made some chilli and will shortly take some to her for lunch. I have printed out a "Humanitarian Aid" poster to put on it.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,270
Originally Posted by VP959
What about Thatcher? Probably the most right wing government in my life time, and she managed to give a thoroughly good kicking to all those on low incomes that we are still feeling today. Her reign (and it was a reign - the bloody woman seemed to think she was the monarch) from May 1979 to November 1990, irrevocably damaged the hopes of many ordinary people, creating an environment where employers could return to employment policies from 200 years ago. Even after she was forced out, Major continued with her general policy strategy for the next year or two, only gradually shifting a bit before the 1997 General Election.
The closest we've had to a centrist government was arguably Blair's.
The closest we've had to a centrist government was arguably Blair's.
The economic and employment reforms were needed and this was agreed across the spectrum - how many have been reversed?
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Trossie
Bliar's government wasn't 'centrist', it was Bliarist.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
Perhaps the terms right, left and centre have lost their meaning. My simplistic view is that Tony Blair attracted a lot of votes from the centre right, by moving Labour away from the hard left days that caused their long spell out of government.
Whether that makes both the Blair and Brown governments "centrist" is debatable, but they certainly weren't as far to the left in their policies as the current Labour party seem to be, neither were they as far to the right as the current government.
Whether that makes both the Blair and Brown governments "centrist" is debatable, but they certainly weren't as far to the left in their policies as the current Labour party seem to be, neither were they as far to the right as the current government.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Trossie
It didn't have policies other than "What can keep Bliar in power". You can hardly call that 'centrist'!!
Originally Posted by VP959
Perhaps the terms right, left and centre have lost their meaning.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Godforsakencountry
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
What about Thatcher? Probably the most right wing government in my life time, and she managed to give a thoroughly good kicking to all those on low incomes that we are still feeling today. Her reign (and it was a reign - the bloody woman seemed to think she was the monarch) from May 1979 to November 1990, irrevocably damaged the hopes of many ordinary people, creating an environment where employers could return to employment policies from 200 years ago. Even after she was forced out, Major continued with her general policy strategy for the next year or two, only gradually shifting a bit before the 1997 General Election.
What about Thatcher? Probably the most right wing government in my life time, and she managed to give a thoroughly good kicking to all those on low incomes that we are still feeling today. Her reign (and it was a reign - the bloody woman seemed to think she was the monarch) from May 1979 to November 1990, irrevocably damaged the hopes of many ordinary people, creating an environment where employers could return to employment policies from 200 years ago. Even after she was forced out, Major continued with her general policy strategy for the next year or two, only gradually shifting a bit before the 1997 General Election.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 70
Posts: 62
But that is a bit like handing out lottery tickets isn't it? Some scoop the jackpot whilst the many get nothing. Had they made houses available to anybody in need then it would have been a policy I could have supported.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by Effluent Man
But that is a bit like handing out lottery tickets isn't it? Some scoop the jackpot whilst the many get nothing. Had they made houses available to anybody in need then it would have been a policy I could have supported.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
The legacy of selling off council housing is still with us. There was very little new build replacement rented accommodation, so as the more affluent council house tenants were able to buy their homes and move up the property ladder, there was a reduced number of affordable rented homes.
In the longer term this policy almost certainly did more harm than good to those who were on such a low income that buying a house was out of the question.
In the longer term this policy almost certainly did more harm than good to those who were on such a low income that buying a house was out of the question.
