Forum menu
?...could it be just what UK politics needs?
Election geeks have posited half-a-dozen or more governing permutations in the event that Ukip makes big gains next May. Among the more obvious are these: A Labour majority, facilitated by Ukip gains from the Conservatives (Cameron’s bedtime with Farage and reveille with Miliband); a Conservative majority in the event that Ukip take from both parties and the LibDems are erased; a repeat of the current Conservative-Lib Dem coalition; or a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, in the event that the Lib Dems retain a sufficient number of seats to help either party to an overall majority.But the possibilities do not end here. Also possible could be a minority government formed by either of the big parties, which could be the result if – say – the Lib Dems have lost the appetite for governing or have too few seats to make up a coalition alone. A ‘rainbow’ coalition, with Labour linking up with the Lib Dems and/or the Greens and even, maybe, the Scottish Nationalists. Or – perhaps the most obvious, and desirable, to certain Conservatives, if Ukip gains more than a dozen or so seats – a Tory-Ukip coalition (or some less formal ‘understanding’).
What no one has mentioned, however, is a German solution – a ‘grand coalition’ of Conservative and Labour that leaves the fringe parties on the fringe and governs from the centre – which is, after all, the territory that a majority of voters inhabit.
It has a certain morbid fascination, although Im sure the idea will have binners spluttering into his Greggs Breakfast Pasty at the thought...but bear the author out, as her parting shot could just be what the left perhaps needs: clear political water to form a new party in.
Such an eventuality could, of course, trigger defections among right-wing Tories and left-wing Labourites. But this might be no bad thing, giving the UK a wider party political spectrum and parties less divided against themselves. That really would be breaking the mould.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/a-lab-con-coalition-its-not-as-crazy-as-you-think/
If the argument from the left in here has mainly been that labour is too centrist and not left [i]enough[/i] (toryish corporate toadying, steady-as-she-goes austerity and approach to deficit etc) then such a move would encourage someone on the left for a new political movement to coalesce around.
Of course it rather assumes that UKIP continue to be wholly a "right of tory party option" and stop treading on Labour toes and appeal too much to labour core voters.
May not be a bad thing at all. I'm sure there are plenty of his more foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic backbenchers that Dave wouldn't be too bothered to see the back of. The ones who hate him for all this namby pamby liberal stuff like gay marriage, and want to bring back hanging. So if he could tell them all to **** off to UKIP then, and move to a centrist ground with labour. At the end of the day, the two parties are essentially indistinguishable from each other on most major policy issues anyway.
In an ideal world it'd temper the Tory's instinctive impulse to punish the poor for being poor, and Labours inclination to spaff loads of money we don't have on chucking money at any perceived problem
It'll never happen though. They're just too tribal. And would much rather spend their time calling each other names
Germany had that effective combination and I don't think it did too much harm.
Think realistically it'd need LibDem, UKIP and SNP to have stolen enough between them from both sides, that Con or Lab would need probably all 3 to gain a very marginal Con or Lab led coalition margin. That key could be UKIP stealing from Labour.
And judging by how much the BBC wants UKIP to win, that is a distinct possible combination.
I can't see a formal coalition between Labour and Tory, too risky for both. Its much more likely one or the other would form a minority government in coalition with the other parties and stumble along for a bit (18 months ?) before there was another general election.
I've always thought we might be better served by people whose main priority was to run the country well as opposed to getting/staying elected next time round.
Or we could just ask ze Germans to run the country for us.
We would need PR for that to happen - not the lab tory coalition the splintering of the parties
We would need a less adversarial style of politics for that to happen as well IMHO. It would either rip itself apart over a principle issue or be so bland/middle of the road it did nothing.
it rather assumes that UKIP continue to be wholly a "right of tory party option" and stop treading on Labour toes and appeal too much to labour core voters.
They are made up of folk to right wing /xenophobic/racist for the Tory party.
They are pretty good at making noise about populist stuff - low taxes. But their basic mantra is a small state and that wont appeal. I of course am assuming the average voter is knowledgeable about politics and not voting based on sound bites ;my view is somewhat weak.
FWIW it is only 15% of UKIP voters who voted labour last time and I would imagine the majority of those are not died in the wool labour voters but floating voters.
Presumably after the GE Boris will be the new tory leader
In an ideal world it'd temper the Tory's instinctive impulse to punish the poor for being poor, and Labours inclination to spaff loads of money we don't have on chucking money at any perceived problem
I've agreed with a lot you've written recently, binners, but hadn't realised just how closely your political thoughts coincided with mine. I think you've just summed up in a single sentence the issue "right wingers" have with Labour, and the main issue moderate liberals have with the Tories.
Personally I'm a big fan of consensual politics, and as mentioned there's not that much between them - rather that than any coalition involving UKIP with their injection of crazy ideas - but also as mentioned I can't see it happening for strategic party reasons, because they're just too in love with the current system of shouting at each other.
Presumably after the GE Boris will be the new tory leader
I hope so. It'll cast them into the electoral wildeness with that buffoon is at the helm. I'm sure the Tory electoral machine thanked him for his [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29523009 ]stirling contribution in Clacton[/url]
I of course am assuming the average voter is knowledgeable about politics and not voting based on sound bites
😆
FWIW it is only 15% of UKIP voters who voted labour last time and I would imagine the majority of those are not died in the wool labour voters but floating voters.
Surely not all that many floating voters voted Labour last time - they polled lower share of the vote in the constituencies I've looked at than in '83 and '87. No, I think you'll find that if 15% of their vote comes from people who voted Labour in 2010, then a significant number of those have always voted Labour before. I could do you a graph to prove it if you like...
I hope so. It'll cast them into the electoral wildeness with that buffoon is at the helm.
I wouldn't be so confident that Labour could win a second term, nor that Boris would result in the party being as unpopular as you expect (for a start I'd imagine he appeals quite well to the voters they need to attract). Hence be careful what you wish for - the Torys losing next time could result in Boris as PM 😯
Oh and I note you describe him as a buffoon - well that's just what he wants his opponents to think of him. I'm fairly sure that unlike JC it is mostly an act.
I struggle to see how anyone can vote for Boris
Bumbling incompetent buffon with racist tendencies whose libido is as loose as his memory.
There is nothing to respect about this man - ignoring his politics entirely in this view.
EDIT:
I'm fairly sure that unlike JC it is mostly an act.
I dont think it is an act personally. i think he is actually like that but he is not an actual idiot. IMHO he is a very clever and astute person who is not very good with words at times and struggles to remember basic details or express himself well. Our very own George W bush basically and not something i would want from a world leader and not from someone representing the country on a world stage.
I struggle to see how anyone can vote for Boris
and yet, Rob Ford, continues to enjoy a majority in Toronto....
I'm not going to disagree with your opinion of Boris (apart from the buffoon bit - see above), but plenty of people have voted for him in recent elections.
aracer - I think the nightmare scenario would be Dave being jettisoned after failing to win a majority. Boris being crowned. He'd gleefully move waaaaaay to the right of Dave (as behind his bumbling buffoon shtick, thats where his true political instincts lie), and then rely on UKIP to prop up a narrow majority, as they'd be indistinguishable on most policies anyway.
Bozza as PM, with Nige as deputy. Can you imagine? If that happens, I'll be leaving the country
The trade unions funding 'Labour' would have something to say about their party getting in bed with the Tories.
Bozza as PM, with Nige as deputy. Can you imagine?
Well it is at least the morning, so I have time to get rid of that image before having nightmares tonight.
Ford has never been re elected as Mayor and indeed he has stood down from the vote which takes place this month.
yes he remained popular with some voters so the point is still a valid one.
As for the voting bit - Hitler won lots of votes as well...perhaps we need to vet candidates before we let them stand .......or voters before they vote
Yours Mao
perhaps we need to vet candidates before we let them stand .......or voters before they vote
I could think of other leaders who that would appeal to - oh look you've already mentioned one 😉
Boris has charisma and is popular with many
but he only scraped past (-3%) a geriatric lame ken livingston that even the Guardian had turned against at the last mayoral election
That was with the backing of pretty much every national and all the free london newspapers at the time, and of course the support of the City
his loyalty to big business means as much of a populist fuss he kicks up about the EU, theres no way hed leave
Hitler won lots of votes as well
For pity's sake man! its only 9:35 on a Monday. This thread was supposed to last the whole family at least 6 hours of work time and you've invoked Godwin's law already.
So what's going to happen within Labour once this process is under way? They will lose the support of their old power base, the working class.
The trade unions funding 'Labour' would have something to say about their party getting in bed with the Tories.
the trades' union would have an opportunity to fund a party that would do what it really wanted for a change...
[s]The trade unions[/s] Big business and private millionairre non dom hedge funder private equity holders funding [s]'Labour'[/s]* 'Tories' would have something to say about their party getting in bed with the[s]Tories[/s] Unions
FTFY
Why is Labour in ""?
They will lose the support of their old power base, the working class.
[i]q.v.[/i] binners [i]et al.[/i]
The support might have already been leaking away.
The working classes only vote on X Factor. Everybody knows that.
But even the public service professional core support of 'Labour' who have been the bedrock of the Blair/Brown/Miliband ethos of the party wouldn't put up with a Lab/Tory coalition. for that reason I think it is a non-starter.
I of course am assuming the average voter is knowledgeable about politics and not voting based on sound bites
I think the reality is we don't, as a population, vote [i]for [/i]new governments we vote against the old one. Democracy is a gong show.
The support might already been leaking away.
The issue if they offer nothing to get them to vote for them.
To miss quote george galloway it is two cheeks of the same arse offering basically the same thing
There is some merit in a Westminister elite in that they all have the same solutions for the same problems with only slightly different flavours.
^^ and if they were seen simply as a Westminster elite then that might persuade people that they were wrong to think the solutions to their problems could be provided by voting for the opposition. The Westminster elite would be seen as the opposition.
I don't see what's so good about consensus politics - it just means opaque compromises cut by unnatural partners...
Boris being crowned. He'd gleefully move waaaaaay to the right of Dave (as behind his bumbling buffoon shtick, thats where his true political instincts lie),
Is that really true though? He's not going to do anything radical around the EU or economically. So socially...?
Westminister elite
This is a bit more catchy than career politician and also helps to create the impression that the country is run by London when MPs are in fact elected nationally.
Funny the thread is already diverted and speaking of Boris.
I struggle to see how anyone can vote for Boris
and yet, Rob Ford, continues to enjoy a majority in Toronto....
And people voted Boris mayor of London.
A UKIP voter in Clacton said he'd voted for the UKIP candidate because the Tory MP they'd had for years had been useless 🙄 So, realistically, anything could happen.
Jam I think we all know that Parliament sits in Westminster and has MPs drawn from all part of the country.
Given this, what is your point?
For example there solution for the North is to spunk cash on HS2 to make it faster for us to get to london rather than make it easier for us to get to places in the North. I have been twice so this change will be less than life changing personally.
The working classes only vote on X Factor. Everybody knows that.
I see a workable format for the pre-election TV debates here... Someone phone ITV!
JY my point is the use of the term "Westminster elite" has two subliminal messages, first the geographic one which plays on people's belief that the country is run from London for the benefit of London and secondly that its run by an "elite". To rise to a cabinet/shadow cabinet office you have to be successful - so you are immediately part of an elite group, almost by definition, you not some bloke/woman from down the pub.
first the geographic one which plays on people's belief that the country is run from London for the benefit of London and secondly that its run by an "elite".
I don't think you'd get many people outside the South East arguing against the geographic point, to be honest. But the word 'elite isn't helpful'. I'd use 'cabal'. Which is what it is.
And that isn't just a pop at the Tories and the present Eton mafia. Labour are probably worse, with their whole 'jobs for the boys' philosophy. As the PCC thread the other day showed, the nepotism in Labour party politics in northern cities, for example, is absolutely shameless.
But again its this that just reinforces the idea that they're all as bad as each other, and the whole political system is broken. As Nigel gleefully points out every other sentence. Because he knows it resonates with a totally disillusioned electorate.
TBH something has to be done. I'm sick of us bending over to Europe/what un-checked migration will do to our country. That doesn't mean I will vote for UKIP but it just shows people are starting to worry.
Lest we forget - effective government requires strong opposition. A L/T coalition,however tempting to some, would fall at this basic hurdle.
@ Jam they are not subliminal they are exactly what the words mean and what the claim is.
Feel free to refute it.
You can use cabal if you like. Its remote and distant from most of the country, few, if any, have had "proper" jobs and they do not live in the real world - Is not aimed at any party in particular to be clear.
@ THM Very good point.
One could argue we have had poor oppositions in the past but you are correct what could counter balance or hold them to account - 12 Lib dems , 2 UKIPer and a green MP?
Our parliament is in London for traditional reasons and long may that continue. It's not worth the cost of moving it to create a situation like in Australia (Canbera) or US (Washington) for example as people would frankly complain as much about the government if it where in Birmingham, Manchester of Liverpool. London and the South East "pay the bills", the taxes (income, employer, corporate, vat and stamp duty) raised there are disproportionately high per head and subsidise the rest of the country. IMO that's normal foe a capital city and the surrounding region, what I have little time for a whinging that Westminster manages the country for the benefit of the South as actually the opposite is true.
My view re elite is as above, the top of the political system is by definition an elite as they are the best that party has to offer. You are in a footballing elite if you play for ManU for example as it's not a career in reality open to anyone.
Business people generally hate real politics (certainly in the UK), it simply isn't of interest and most wouldn't take the pay cut required. Hence political leaders tend to be career politicians whether they are Salmond, Clegg, Cameron, Blair, Brown, Miliband, Balls etc etc
The trade unions funding 'Labour' would have something to say about their party getting in bed with the Tories.
Maybe, maybe not. It's been a long time since Labour offered the unions anything more substantial than a few crumbs from the top table. That's why I signed a form to tell my union that they can't use my fees to fund the Labour party.
jambalaya - Member
My view re elite is as above, the top of the political system is by definition an elite as they are the best that party has to offer
Bless.
I don't think anyone is suggesting moving parliament. You can keep the ****s! 😉 What I'm saying is the present arrangement has created the economy we have now, where London is, to all intents and purposes, an Independent City State, and economic decisions that can effect the rest of the countries economy pretty negatively are taken in London's interests pretty much exclusively