Bullets 'n' Babes

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.

bradavon wrote:So Clegg and Cameron should go, just because they lost?

The tories didn't lose,they failed to get a majority.

bradavon wrote:Cameron is the best leader of the Tories in years

As the previous 3 were Howard,Duncan-Smith and Hague that's not hard to achieve.,

bradavon wrote:you cannot blame Cameron entirely for losing.

they didn't lose!!

bradavon wrote:Clegg is also the best Lib Dem leader in years,.

he is shite.

bradavon wrote:so good he even managed to give Lib Dems a fighting chance.

even Clegg has called his partys showing "deeply disappointing".

bradavon wrote:but given how badly they normally do

,

bradavon wrote:The Lib Dems did better than they have for a very long time..

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:You want all THREE parties to have a new leader? That's OTT.

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.

saltysam wrote:interesting article from the Sunday version of Mark's newspaper of choice

I'm not taking any slagging from someone who buys The Mirror.

Interesting article. I like that Hitchens bluntly says what he thinks. Even though there are parts I don't agree with.

bradavon wrote:Isn't Mark the ghost editor?

Shhh. It's a secret.

saltysam wrote:As the previous 3 were Howard,Duncan-Smith and Hague that's not hard to achieve.

I actually liked Hague. He kicked Tony Blair's ass every week in PMQ, but couldn't get the public on side.

he is shite.

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.

even Clegg has called his partys showing "deeply disappointing"

Yes, but they still got only 3% less votes than Labour.

saltysam wrote:The tories didn't lose,they failed to get a majority.

Lost or didn't get a majority. That's basically the same thing. They didn't win.

saltysam wrote:As the previous 3 were Howard,Duncan-Smith and Hague that's not hard to achieve.

Of course but he's still the best leader in years.

saltysam wrote: even Clegg has called his partys showing "deeply disappointing".

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"

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: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.

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.

Markgway wrote:I actually liked Hague. He kicked Tony Blair's ass every week in PMQ, but couldn't get the public on side.

Wasn't it Hague who wore that baseball cap? That was hilarious . He's a good MP though and knows his stuff. He's not suited for leadership though.

bradavon wrote:
Lost or didn't get a majority. That's basically the same thing. They didn't win.

so in your view all 3 parties lost then?

bradavon wrote:Of course but he's still the best leader in years.

yeah sure,his radical policies included herding immigrants to the shetlands

bradavon wrote: Given how far they had to come, doing a lot better or even winning was extremely difficult. Maybe impossible.

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.

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"

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.

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.

saltysam wrote: You cannot compare Labour with Lib Dems.

why not?

bradavon wrote:Wasn't it Hague who wore that baseball cap? That was hilarious .

Yeah, he should just accept he's not "cool".

He's a good MP though and knows his stuff. He's not suited for leadership though.

I'm not so sure... I think his time could come again.

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.

saltysam wrote:so in your view all 3 parties lost then?

So in your view, they didn't?

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.

Evidently, they're a party whose policies, the mainstream disagree with.

saltysam wrote:you haven't answered my question-if the Lib Dems made an impact why have they ended up with less seats?

That depends what you're judging "impact" against. Like said, they all lost.

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.

I heard the Tories would not budge on PR and the Lib Dems couldn't then go any further with them.

Markgway wrote:British democracy would become a joke and we would end up like Italy.

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:I'm not so sure... I think his time could come again.

No way. He's had his chance. He won't be given a second one. He'd probably make a good PM though.

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.

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).

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.

bradavon wrote:
I'm so thrilled Labour are out.

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.

bradavon wrote: I didn't want Tories in but am wiling to give them a chance.

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 sword

saltysam 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.

I've spent the past 5-6 years arguing with Mark about The Tories. You're right, I'm definitely a Torie Toff . I'll suddenly forget that I've voted Lib Dem in ever general election since I've been able to. I'd rather have Tories in power than Labour, simples!

As a rule it's the other way round but Labour have done a dreadful job the last few years.

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

WTF! You don't half talk nonsense sometimes. I haven't even commented much in this thread.

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.

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!!

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 losers i backed a loser in Labour as well but at least i know they'll be back in power eventually.

bradavon wrote: simples!

there you go again with that stupid catchphrase-how old are you,10?

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

bradavon wrote:WTF! You don't half talk nonsense sometimes.

I'm not the one who said the "libs had done better than they had for years" when in fact they'd lost 5 seats

bradavon wrote: Getting thrilled over politics (which makes a real difference!)

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.

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!!

I'll be amazed if this coalition lasts five years.there'll be another election before then.

I'm sure, I heard they've agreed a "3 year coalition".

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.

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.

"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.

saltysam wrote:3: Cameron however is far cleverer than the limited Clegg and will play him like a harp for the honeymoon period.

You reckon? They both seem as intelligent and dimwitted as each other, the same goes for their egos too.

saltysam wrote:5: Labour will elect Milliband,get some new young,fresh faces into the shadow cabinet,regroup and prepare for the next election.

Agreed. It's a LONG time overdue.

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.

That's very risky. Given how long Tories have been out of power.

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

grim_tales wrote:Surprised the Tories and Lib Dems got together seeing how different they are (views wise).

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.

bradavon wrote: That's very risky. Given how long Tories have been out of power.

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.

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.

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?

The same goes for Tories too. Like we say, it will be over by then.