The Leaders' Debates
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
So Clegg and Cameron should go, just because they lost? Cameron is the best leader of the Tories in years, you cannot blame Cameron entirely for losing.
Clegg is also the best Lib Dem leader in years, so good he even managed to give Lib Dems a fighting chance. Sure they didn't win either but given how badly they normally do, it was a massively uphill struggle to start with. The Lib Dems did better than they have for a very long time.
You want all THREE parties to have a new leader? That's OTT.
Clegg is also the best Lib Dem leader in years, so good he even managed to give Lib Dems a fighting chance. Sure they didn't win either but given how badly they normally do, it was a massively uphill struggle to start with. The Lib Dems did better than they have for a very long time.
You want all THREE parties to have a new leader? That's OTT.
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
The tories didn't lose,they failed to get a majority.bradavon wrote:So Clegg and Cameron should go, just because they lost?
As the previous 3 were Howard,Duncan-Smith and Hague that's not hard to achieve.,bradavon wrote:Cameron is the best leader of the Tories in years
bradavon wrote:you cannot blame Cameron entirely for losing.
he is shite.bradavon wrote:Clegg is also the best Lib Dem leader in years,.
bradavon wrote:so good he even managed to give Lib Dems a fighting chance.
,bradavon wrote:but given how badly they normally do
they got 62 seats in 2005-they won 57 seats this week.how the fuck does that equate to "did better than they have for years"bradavon wrote:The Lib Dems did better than they have for a very long time..
Certainly Brown and Clegg for their dismal efforts,Cameron will be eaten alive by his own party so he's best jumping before he gets pushed.bradavon wrote:You want all THREE parties to have a new leader? That's OTT.
working class blu-ray fan
- Markgway
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 20194
- Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04
Re: The Leaders' Debates
I'm not taking any slagging from someone who buys The Mirror.saltysam wrote:interesting article from the Sunday version of Mark's newspaper of choice![]()
Interesting article. I like that Hitchens bluntly says what he thinks. Even though there are parts I don't agree with.
Shhh. It's a secret.bradavon wrote:Isn't Mark the ghost editor?
I actually liked Hague. He kicked Tony Blair's ass every week in PMQ, but couldn't get the public on side.saltysam wrote:As the previous 3 were Howard,Duncan-Smith and Hague that's not hard to achieve.
Clegg isn't shite. I'm not in awe of him, but he's the best leader the Lib Dems have had in a while.he is shite.
Yes, but they still got only 3% less votes than Labour.even Clegg has called his partys showing "deeply disappointing"
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
Lost or didn't get a majority. That's basically the same thing. They didn't win.saltysam wrote:The tories didn't lose,they failed to get a majority.
Of course but he's still the best leader in years.saltysam wrote:As the previous 3 were Howard,Duncan-Smith and Hague that's not hard to achieve.
Given how far they had to come, doing a lot better or even winning was extremely difficult. Maybe impossible.saltysam wrote:even Clegg has called his partys showing "deeply disappointing".
Like I said, Clegg (and it was mostly Clegg) managed to get people paying attention to the Lib Dems. That's not happened for a very long time. I've always voted for them but past elections, most don't even bother to listen.saltysam wrote:they got 62 seats in 2005-they won 57 seats this week.how the fuck does that equate to "did better than they have for years"
Brown agreed but I disagree Clegg did dismally. Like I said it was extremely difficult to start with. You cannot compare Labour with Lib Dems.saltysam wrote:Certainly Brown and Clegg for their dismal efforts,Cameron will be eaten alive by his own party so he's best jumping before he gets pushed.
Wasn't it Hague who wore that baseball cap? That was hilariousMarkgway wrote:I actually liked Hague. He kicked Tony Blair's ass every week in PMQ, but couldn't get the public on side.
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
so in your view all 3 parties lost then?bradavon wrote:
Lost or didn't get a majority. That's basically the same thing. They didn't win.
yeah sure,his radical policies included herding immigrants to the shetlandsbradavon wrote:Of course but he's still the best leader in years.
The Lib Dems will never win a general election,they are a party who likes to criticise from the outside,they'd shit themselves if they ever got in.bradavon wrote: Given how far they had to come, doing a lot better or even winning was extremely difficult. Maybe impossible.
saltysam wrote:they got 62 seats in 2005-they won 57 seats this week.how the fuck does that equate to "did better than they have for years"
you haven't answered my question-if the Lib Dems made an impact why have they ended up with less seats?Obviously voters did pay attention and didn't like what they saw.bradavon wrote:Like I said, Clegg (and it was mostly Clegg) managed to get people paying attention to the Lib Dems. That's not happened for a very long time. I've always voted for them but past elections, most don't even bother to listen.
why not?saltysam wrote: You cannot compare Labour with Lib Dems.
working class blu-ray fan
- Markgway
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 20194
- Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04
Re: The Leaders' Debates
Yeah, he should just accept he's not "cool".bradavon wrote:Wasn't it Hague who wore that baseball cap? That was hilarious.
I'm not so sure... I think his time could come again.He's a good MP though and knows his stuff. He's not suited for leadership though.
- Markgway
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 20194
- Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04
Re: The Leaders' Debates
Gordon Brown has resigned but will stay until September in a desperate bid to woo the Lib Dems. Clegg and co have welcomed Labour talks.
I'm starting to think that the Tories have been set up and that negotiations between the Libs and the Tories were a tactic by the former to get Labour to get rid of Brown. Wouldn't surprise me if very soon the Libs say that current talks have fallen thru and that they will instead be negotiating with Labour.
This whole thing has turned into a farce.
From what I understand proportial representation - which sounds fair in theory - would pretty much guarantee that all future governments be coalitions between two or more parties. Because of the vote split never again would there be any single party in charge. British democracy would become a joke and we would end up like Italy. Labour don't seem to care because those in Downing St will do anything to cling to power. The irony is Labour are the party who benefit most from the first-past-the-post system. You can see that from last Thursday's results. The future of British politics is in the hands of a few men willing to allow their selfish ambitions to destroy it.
I'm starting to think that the Tories have been set up and that negotiations between the Libs and the Tories were a tactic by the former to get Labour to get rid of Brown. Wouldn't surprise me if very soon the Libs say that current talks have fallen thru and that they will instead be negotiating with Labour.
This whole thing has turned into a farce.
From what I understand proportial representation - which sounds fair in theory - would pretty much guarantee that all future governments be coalitions between two or more parties. Because of the vote split never again would there be any single party in charge. British democracy would become a joke and we would end up like Italy. Labour don't seem to care because those in Downing St will do anything to cling to power. The irony is Labour are the party who benefit most from the first-past-the-post system. You can see that from last Thursday's results. The future of British politics is in the hands of a few men willing to allow their selfish ambitions to destroy it.
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
So in your view, they didn't?saltysam wrote:so in your view all 3 parties lost then?
Evidently, they're a party whose policies, the mainstream disagree with.saltysam wrote:The Lib Dems will never win a general election,they are a party who likes to criticise from the outside,they'd shit themselves if they ever got in.
That depends what you're judging "impact" against. Like said, they all lost.saltysam wrote:you haven't answered my question-if the Lib Dems made an impact why have they ended up with less seats?
I heard the Tories would not budge on PR and the Lib Dems couldn't then go any further with them.Markgway wrote:I'm starting to think that the Tories have been set up and that negotiations between the Libs and the Tories were a tactic by the former to get Labour to get rid of Brown. Wouldn't surprise me if very soon the Libs say that current talks have fallen thru and that they will instead be negotiating with Labour.
PR is the norm in more countries than you may realise but agreed, ultimately it makes most sense for one party to win. New Zealand have had a hung parliment in "every single" election since 1995, when they adopted PR.Markgway wrote:British democracy would become a joke and we would end up like Italy.
No way. He's had his chance. He won't be given a second one. He'd probably make a good PM though.Markgway wrote:I'm not so sure... I think his time could come again.
- Markgway
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 20194
- Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04
Re: The Leaders' Debates
What's happening now is an argument for not having PR. The Lib Dems are in a position of power despite getting only 57 seats. Imagine if this happened every election from now on. Experts reckon that's what PR would most like bring - a succession of Hung parliments where cabinets and key issues are decide behind closed doors. The public would never know if they're gonna get who or what they voted for. The SNP got only 6 seats but are acting like the future of Britain is in their hands. At first I thought PR sounded fair, but the more I read, the more the possibilty concerns me... I hope both the Tories and Labour reject the proposed referendum (a party majority is needed to approve any deal done by the negotiators).bradavon wrote:PR is the norm in more countries than you may realise but agreed, ultimately it makes most sense for one party to win. New Zealand have had a hung parliment in "every single" election since 1995, when they adopted PR.
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
I don't reckon we're going to get PR any more. It's gone very quiet.
I'm so thrilled Labour are out. I didn't want Tories in but am wiling to give them a chance.
I'm so thrilled Labour are out. I didn't want Tories in but am wiling to give them a chance.
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
bradavon wrote:
I'm so thrilled Labour are out.
i'm sure Cameron will be happy to hear that.I have to say Brad you've failed dismally as the BNB political analyst during this election and should,like Brown do the honourable thing and fall on your swordbradavon wrote: I didn't want Tories in but am wiling to give them a chance.
working class blu-ray fan
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
I've spent the past 5-6 years arguing with Mark about The Tories. You're right, I'm definitely a Torie Toffsaltysam wrote:I get thrilled getting my leg over,watching a good movie or watching my football team win.you get thrilled about politics! are you going out on the town to celebrate?i think you are a closet Tory toff.
As a rule it's the other way round but Labour have done a dreadful job the last few years.
WTF! You don't half talk nonsense sometimes. I haven't even commented much in this thread.saltysam wrote:I have to say Brad you've failed dismally as the BNB political analyst during this election and should,like Brown do the honourable thing and fall on your sword
p.s - I'd rather stick pitchforks in my eyes than be thrilled about football. Getting thrilled over politics (which makes a real difference!) or football. No contest.
- Markgway
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 20194
- Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04
Re: The Leaders' Debates
What a difference a day makes...
It's all sorted now. A Con-Lib government. Let's hope they do a decent job because if they don't in five years I'm voting Labour!!

It's all sorted now. A Con-Lib government. Let's hope they do a decent job because if they don't in five years I'm voting Labour!!
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
I'll be amazed if this coalition lasts five years.there'll be another election before then.bradavon wrote: I'll suddenly forget that I've voted Lib Dem in ever general election since I've been able to.bradavon wrote: Typical Brad-backing losersi backed a loser in Labour as well but at least i know they'll be back in power eventually.
there you go again with that stupid catchphrase-how old are you,10?bradavon wrote: simples!![]()
saltysam wrote:I have to say Brad you've failed dismally as the BNB political analyst during this election and should,like Brown do the honourable thing and fall on your swordI'm not the one who said the "libs had done better than they had for years" when in fact they'd lost 5 seatsbradavon wrote:WTF! You don't half talk nonsense sometimes.![]()
You truly think so? in a years time come back and tell me how this new government has made a real difference.Anyway if you truly thought that why consistently vote for a party that'll never get in power and have now in fact become Tory poodles? this quote from an admittedly Labour guy sums them up "Former Labour minister Kim Howells was scathing of the Lib Dems, and said he was glad his party had not done a deal with them.bradavon wrote: Getting thrilled over politics (which makes a real difference!)
He said: "I tell you why it's been rejected by most Labour MPs - because they know that they're [the Liberal Democrats] a bunch of opportunistic toerags, who'll say anything to anyone in order to get power. And they've done it this time, they've got power." "Markgway wrote:What a difference a day makes...
Let's hope they do a decent job because if they don't in five years I'm voting Labour!!
working class blu-ray fan
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
I'm sure, I heard they've agreed a "3 year coalition".
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
I have to be honest i haven't really followed the ins & outs of this election closely but my take is this-
1: Brown had to go and did the right thing.
2: Cameron made a true pigs ear of his campaign and from being 20 + points clear a matter of months and looking on course for a commanding majority he's been forced to go to the Lib Dems, led by a leader whose ego would lead him to sell his own mother to get in the spotlight,a party who also failed dismally and fell in a matter of weeks from all time high poll ratings to ending up with 5 seats less than they had last time,losing a number of councils as well.
3: Cameron however is far cleverer than the limited Clegg and will play him like a harp for the honeymoon period.
4: When things start getting tough in a few months down the line Clegg will come under pressure from within to bring down the coalition,he'll get advised by the likes of Ming and Ashdown to create a stir.whether he will have the balls to do so is another matter though,he may be overthrown.
5: Labour will elect Milliband,get some new young,fresh faces into the shadow cabinet,regroup and prepare for the next election.
6: However if Cameron has any nous he'll bring in some popular measures,call another election quickly,sell Clegg down the river and get himself a majority.Again that'll be whether he has the balls to go for it.
1: Brown had to go and did the right thing.
2: Cameron made a true pigs ear of his campaign and from being 20 + points clear a matter of months and looking on course for a commanding majority he's been forced to go to the Lib Dems, led by a leader whose ego would lead him to sell his own mother to get in the spotlight,a party who also failed dismally and fell in a matter of weeks from all time high poll ratings to ending up with 5 seats less than they had last time,losing a number of councils as well.
3: Cameron however is far cleverer than the limited Clegg and will play him like a harp for the honeymoon period.
4: When things start getting tough in a few months down the line Clegg will come under pressure from within to bring down the coalition,he'll get advised by the likes of Ming and Ashdown to create a stir.whether he will have the balls to do so is another matter though,he may be overthrown.
5: Labour will elect Milliband,get some new young,fresh faces into the shadow cabinet,regroup and prepare for the next election.
6: However if Cameron has any nous he'll bring in some popular measures,call another election quickly,sell Clegg down the river and get himself a majority.Again that'll be whether he has the balls to go for it.
working class blu-ray fan
- Markgway
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 20194
- Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04
Re: The Leaders' Debates
I heard on the news that it's a 5-year fixed term and that there won't be an election before 2015. That seems to be part of the agreement. I'm sure the Lib Dems were aware that the Tories could dump them in a few months once up and running. Unless there's an unforseen disaster the pact is here to stay. Frankly I think the Tories gave too much ground... but I guess they felt they couldn't take the chance of Labour sneaking in. Whatever, the easy part is done. The hard part is governing and getting Britain out of a mess. Good luck, Dave.
As for Labour my money is on David Milliband. Alan Johnson has already publicly backed him and Harriet Harperson said she wouldn't run either. Andy Burnham is too meek and nobody likes Ed Balls. I think DM is capable enough and I'm sure if his brother Eddie tries any shit he'll bitch slap him.
As for Labour my money is on David Milliband. Alan Johnson has already publicly backed him and Harriet Harperson said she wouldn't run either. Andy Burnham is too meek and nobody likes Ed Balls. I think DM is capable enough and I'm sure if his brother Eddie tries any shit he'll bitch slap him.
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
"The BBC has learned that the only way to remove a government before the five years is up would be in a vote of confidence backed by 55% of MPs. Current rules are that the votes of 50% of MPs, plus one, can remove a government." When,not if they fall out the Libs,labour,the others and a few tory rebels will easily surpass the 55%. It'll happen but i hope it doesn't,Labour needs the time to regroup,reorganise and be ready for government again in five years.
working class blu-ray fan
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
You reckon? They both seem as intelligent and dimwitted as each other, the same goes for their egos too.saltysam wrote:3: Cameron however is far cleverer than the limited Clegg and will play him like a harp for the honeymoon period.
Agreed. It's a LONG time overdue.saltysam wrote:5: Labour will elect Milliband,get some new young,fresh faces into the shadow cabinet,regroup and prepare for the next election.
That's very risky. Given how long Tories have been out of power.saltysam wrote:6: However if Cameron has any nous he'll bring in some popular measures,call another election quickly,sell Clegg down the river and get himself a majority.Again that'll be whether he has the balls to go for it.
- grim_tales
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 22162
- Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 18:34
- Location: St. Albans, UK
Re: The Leaders' Debates
Surprised the Tories and Lib Dems got together seeing how different they are (views wise). I voted Lib Dem in the hope the Tories wouldnt get in 
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
You've hit the nail on the head there Grim and what you say is the main reason why the coalition won't last.I'd imagine a number of Lib Dem voters are not impressed that the party they voted for has fell into bed with the tories.it could cost them bigtime next time round.grim_tales wrote:Surprised the Tories and Lib Dems got together seeing how different they are (views wise).
working class blu-ray fan
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
Worked for Harold Wilson back in 1974 although in different circumstances.there is no way on earth Cameron will want to be relying on the Lib Dems for five years.bradavon wrote: That's very risky. Given how long Tories have been out of power.
working class blu-ray fan
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
The way you said "quickly" I thought you meant within months but agreed, it's never going to last 5 years. No way. I give it a year, tops.
-
saltysam
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 9357
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 19:27
Re: The Leaders' Debates
How exactly at the next election are the Lib Dems going to effectively campaign against a party they've been sitting in bed and making policies with?
working class blu-ray fan
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Re: The Leaders' Debates
The same goes for Tories too. Like we say, it will be over by then.
