Brown sacrificed for the Lib Dems


By richmillett
May 10, 2010
Share

“Cameron on the Brink of No10″ screams the London Evening Standard. How things have turned in the space of an hour.

The duplicity of the Lib Dems is now all too evident for the country to see.

They have spent the weekend negotiating with the Conservatives when it was obvious to all that their obsession with proportional representation was never going to be accepted by the Conservatives.

Therefore, Clegg can now say that he has fulfilled his duty to speak to the biggest party when the whole exercise seems to have been a charade and a precursor to clearing the decks and starting full on negotiations with Labour.

For all Cameron’s efforts to want to deal with the economic problems, and Clegg making noises that he concurred, Britain is now at the whim of a party that saw its MPs decimated last Thursday when the Lib Dem intake of MPs was reduced from 62 to 57.

This reduction is not exactly a full-out endorsement of proportional representation and yet a discredited third party is now delaying the formation of government at a time of crisis, and all for wanting to change our voting system.

For all those who were wary of the Lib Dems before the election this is confirmation of how disingenuous the Lib Dems are and always have been; their whole raison d’etre has been to change the voting system to entrench themselves in power while allowing the BNP and other fascist parties, including those on the radical left, to also gain a presence in power.

I don’t blame the Conservatives for wanting to form a coalition with the Lib Dems, however distasteful that will be for the 10 million that voted Conservative last Thursday.

I don’t blame Brown or Labour for wanting to stick to power, as any politician would wish to do. Brown feels that he did as much as anyone ever could to keep this country out of an economic depression, after a recession that started in America.

It was Nick Clegg that called on the speaker, Michael Martin, to resign as if the Speaker was solely responsible for the whole expenses fiasco. Now Brown has also gone at his behest, as if one man is solely responsible for the economic crisis.

This is the same Nick Clegg who wishes to reduce Israel’s military capability when it fights Islamic radicals (Hamas) similar to those our troops are fighting in Afghanistan (Taleban).

I am not a Labour supporter but I have been shocked over the last few months by the vitriol commentators have aimed at Gordon Brown. The commentary of many has amounted to unadulterated bullying of a man who while fighting a general election has also had to run the country.

Under Brown and Blair we have become a more progressive society with the minimum wage and civil partnerships introduced.

Sadly, Brown has been remembered by all the pseudo-financial journalists for selling gold at a low, as if they themselves could have predicted the gold price rise to over $1000/ounce.

Meanwhile, Brown invested the proceeds in a weak Euro which has strengthened against the pound.

New Labour has run out of steam and it is time for a change to the Conservatives but for the country to be held to ransom by 57 people who haven’t tasted power for 70 years, and who are holding out solely for proportional representation at the expense of the British economy, brings British politics to a new, and sad, low.

Meanwhile, our next PM could end up being someone who was not involved in the televised debates, that seem to have taken on mythical proportions.

That is if it isn’t the great Nick Clegg, himself.

www.richardmillett.wordpress.com

COMMENTS

Jonathan Hoffman

Mon, 05/10/2010 - 18:20

Rate this:

0 points

Dave has offered Nick the billet doux of a referendum on AV

Do you think that offer was made safe in the knowledge that Nick has gone cold on Dave and has gone into the arms of Gordon, who has offered AV without a referendum?

In other words, safe in the knowledge that it was an offer that would never be accepted?

I find it hard to imagine that Dave would offer a chance of AV, given that AV would be bad for the Conservatives - it's a bit like a turkey voting for Xmas ...


Dan Judelson

Mon, 05/10/2010 - 18:32

Rate this:

0 points

Brown already offered a referendum on AVb(it was in the Labour manifesto).

Dave and his messenger boy George pressed the panic button, is all.

I think AV would be bad for the Conservatives. But not as bad as STV, Lib Dems favoured option. And not as bad - from a Tory perspective as not being in power.

Richard, I agree with you about the vitriol.


Jonathan Hoffman

Mon, 05/10/2010 - 18:42

Rate this:

0 points

But Gordon has apparently now offered AV WITHOUT a referendum.

Since he and Nick together do not have a majority to vote it through, it is an empty offer.

But Nick may well prefer it nevertheless especially as Gordon has resigned thereby cutting the Gordian knot (there is tomorrow's "Sun" headline......)


scampben

Mon, 05/10/2010 - 21:29

Rate this:

0 points

Well we can see just how awful the horsetrading is when trying to form a coalition government, and that's before any kind of PR or AV. As Cameron predicted, the electorate are merely watching from the sidelines as the politcos swan in and out of smoke filled rooms and occasionally throw us a few crumbs of information.

And by my reckoning, with 1/2 million votes, the BNP would have 6 or 7 seats under PR.


Blacklisted Dictator

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 18:56

Rate this:

0 points

Richard,

I think that a Con-Lib coalition is the worst of all possible outcomes.
I know that it conforms to electoral logic (there would be a majority) but politically it is the end of the road for The Tories. I do not believe that they will ever recover.

And AV is the most illogical voting system that could ever be foisted upon electorate.

Cameron should have offered Clegg zilch and he should have let him jump into bed with Labour. It was a marriage that could never have been consecrated and Camerton should have realized that Clegg and Brown were going nowhere.

Clegg's hand was extremely weak. I wonder whether Cameron, Hague etc had ever played Poker in their entire lives. If they had, I doubt whether they would have won anything.


Blacklisted Dictator

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 19:55

Rate this:

0 points

Melanie wrote this on her Spectator Blog prior to the formation of the Con-Lib coalition...

"Cameron was the one who had most to lose – and he has lost it. He was wrong to have responded to Clegg’s blackmail in the first place – he should have said he would not do any deals with a party that had been rejected by three quarters of the electorate. He should have calculated that Clegg would not bring a minority Tory government down and thus risk being branded as irresponsible and unprincipled in the face of a national ecionomic crisis. But having entered into negotiations with the LibDems in good faith, when Clegg’s perfidy became known yesterday Cameron should have walked away. Instead he upped his offer to promise a referendum on AV, thus effectively offering to wipe out some of his own party's parliamentary seats and make it harder to achieve a Conservative majority in future. If Cameron is so feeble under pressure from Nick Clegg, how would he react to the pressure from the enemies of this country, or in any kind of national crisis?"


Blacklisted Dictator

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 20:02

Rate this:

0 points

I have to conclude that Cameron was determined to be PM at any price. He has been extremely naive and more than a little stupid in offering a referendum on AV. Let us only hope that if such a referendum comes to pass, the electorate will have the good sense to reject it.


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 22:47

Rate this:

0 points

Remember that both the Conservatives and Labour will be camapigning against AV at the referendum. Only the LDs will camapign for it. And much more money will be available for the 'No' campaign than the 'Yes' one. It seems pretty unlikely to pass.

I saw one study which said AV would only take one seat away from the Conservatives in the South. (That seemed very low to me, I don't understand why - seems to me that any C-held seat with less than 50% of the vote is vulnerable under AV).


Blacklisted Dictator

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 05:08

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan,

AV was in the Labour manifesto, so how can you be certain that the new Labour shadow cabinet will campaign against it?


Blacklisted Dictator

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 05:26

Rate this:

0 points

And I wonder what % of the electorate will even vote in a referendum about an AV system. I think that the turn-out will be quite low. Actually, it would be more democratic to leave the decision to a free parliamentary vote.

Whatever other manifesto promises Cameron has flushed down the toilet, he has been reckless to accept the AV referendum.

Of course, AV is a bizarre Brown legacy. The referendum is only taking place because he managed to squeeze it into the Labour manifesto.


Blacklisted Dictator

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 05:44

Rate this:

0 points

According to The Telegraph:

"There will not be another election until May 2015 unless a vote of no confidence in the Government is passed by an “enhanced majority” of Parliament. It is not yet clear what the enhanced majority would be but it could be two-thirds or three quarters of MPs."

So what happens if a budget is voted down and a vote of no confidence is not passed by an "enhanced majority"?

Theoretically, one could have a parliament that is unable to pass any legislation. For a dissolution, it would need Conservative MP's to vote against their own govt.

Perhaps, I have missed something?


Blacklisted Dictator

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 06:07

Rate this:

0 points

A comment posted on The Telegraph blog:
"The party tht will benefit most from AV or any other new system is the Liberals. They will stay in check with the Tories until their party funds have been built up, the new voting system in place, and they are ready to fight another election. The ConLib alliance will then be broken."


Blacklisted Dictator

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 06:33

Rate this:

0 points

A comment posted on Norman Tebbitt's Telegraph blog:

"The coalition are planning to change the constitution so that the Government cannot be forced to resign on a vote of no confidence. Is that what the LibDems meant by reforming Parliament for the better?"


Blacklisted Dictator

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 07:25

Rate this:

0 points

A comment on Melanie's Spectator blog:

"If this election's figures were reversed and Labour had secured 36% of the vote, with the Conservatives on 30%, Labour would have had a majority of around 100 seats. At the present time of economic crisis the British electoral system has failed to deliver."


Blacklisted Dictator

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 08:01

Rate this:

0 points

The BBC website: "The next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015, says soon-to-be foreign secretary William Hague. He can say this with confidence because one of the points of the coalition agreement is to introduce fixed term, five-year parliaments from now."

Now, are we really to believe that this coalition is going to last 5 years?

Let us assume that, sooner or later, the Liberals withdraw from the coalition.... does that mean that there has to be a Conservative minority government until 2015?

Can someone please explain how this New Democracy actually works??


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 09:50

Rate this:

0 points

@BD

Lab manifesto commits to holding referendum on AV. No commitment to supporting it.

Yr other points well taken. I understand a 'coalition staterment of intent' will be published today, maybe all will become clear ...


Blacklisted Dictator

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 18:09

Rate this:

0 points

Norman Tebbit's Telegraph blog":

"When the fatal split brings the coalition to an end, it will probably be over Europe.

There is however another novel factor which will come into play when the coalition does come apart. If we have legislated for a fixed term Parliament, what happens then? What if no one can command the confidence of the House of Commons and there cannot be a general election to resolve the issue?

As they say, marry in haste and repent at leisure."


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 22:20

Rate this:

0 points

Tebbit should read the coalition agreement which says that if 55% of MPs want a general election there can be one

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

RICHMILLETT ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS