NeoGAF

Has anybody seen Charles Kennedy since the coalition was formed?.
He's a high profile Lib-Dem and i haven't seen him anywhere.

Originally Posted by jas0nuk

The 55% rule applies to dissolution of parliament only, not confidence in the government. If 50%+1 vote against a confidence bill the government has to resign.

This is not a new or unusual thing: in Scotland 66% MPs are required to dissolve parliament.

I agree with everyone's comments about Melanie Philips and Mehdi Hassan, holy shit they were so opinionated and bitter.

"Why have a 55% threshold at all?
There has been some suggestion it was put in to stop either the Tories or the Lib Dems walking out on the coalition halfway through when their poll ratings pick up. But some argue it is not high enough as theoretically the Lib Dems and Conservatives could whip their MPs - who together reach just over 56% - to support a dissolution motion and subvert their own fixed-term parliament plan".

You don't write the rules of the constitution on the back of a fag packet and base all the numbers around the present situation.If the Lib Dems split from the coalition the opposition can only muster 53%.and using 'National interest' the coalition can magically muster 56% and call an election.

Originally Posted by PJV3

Has anybody seen Charles Kennedy since the coalition was formed?.
He's a high profile Lib-Dem and i haven't seen him anywhere.

Hiding behind these guys, waving.

Originally Posted by Empty

nick clegg op-ed in the guardian talking about the coalition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ms-are-liberal

presumably written to try and fan the flames of 'betrayal' being spread across the left by irritating labour supporters and people who can't deal with compromise.

"Fan the flames"? Don't you mean "douse"?

Surprisingly, I'm agreeing with the rest of your post. Very positive start, except for the 55% dissolution of parliament and (heavily rumoured) redrawing of constituencies to benefit the Tories malarky, which is suspicious.

Originally Posted by Empty

nick clegg op-ed in the guardian talking about the coalition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ms-are-liberal

presumably written to try and fan the flames of 'betrayal' being spread across the left by irritating labour supporters and people who can't deal with compromise. i think he makes a strong argument, and despite my ideological differences, i've been pleasantly surprised by the coalition so far. the civil liberties stuff is the first government legislation been put through in a long while that i'm genuinely happy about, the child asylum seekers imprisonment ending gives them an early moral high ground, the policy deals are good, and the mood from downing street has come off as very positive; let's hope it continues.

I agree about the civil liberties legislation, For the life of me i could never understand how the Labour party went along with that shit. As for the coalition, i want the public and press not to repeat the mistakes of the early Blair years or we will end up another leader who thinks he walks on water.Applaud when they get it right and stamp on their bollocks when they don't.

Originally Posted by Empty

nick clegg op-ed in the guardian talking about the coalition.

crucially, the relentless incursions of the state into the lives of individuals that has characterised the last 13 years ends here.

Does they, Nick ?

Originally Posted by Dambrosi

and (heavily rumoured) redrawing of constituencies to benefit the Tories malarky, which is suspicious.

Why is that malarky? It certainly looks as if there is a problem with the constituencies right now when you look at the last few elections and compare vote percentages to number of seats won.

Originally Posted by Dambrosi

"Fan the flames"? Don't you mean "douse"?
.

do'h!

Originally Posted by xbhaskarx

Why is that malarky? It certainly looks as if there is a problem with the constituencies right now when you look at the last few elections and compare vote percentages to number of seats won.

It's nothing to do with making the votes to seats more proportional and everything to do with reducing the amount of urban seats (because Labour usually win them).

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

Stephen Timms stabbed twice in the stomach: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8683596.stm

Just to make it even more bizarre, he seems to be a *ridiculously* popular MP in his own right; if the BBC report is accurate, he's got the biggest majority in the whole house of commons, and had a swing *from* Conservative to Labour this time around; I don't think you could even put it down to wild political unpopularity.

Originally Posted by xbhaskarx

Why is that malarky? It certainly looks as if there is a problem with the constituencies right now when you look at the last few elections and compare vote percentages to number of seats won.

It's gerrymandering, basically. The Tories want to ensure that their chances of getting re-elected are as high as possible, even if they have to use undemocratic means (such as changing constituency borders without local approval, in order to merge urban seats so that there are fewer of them, and therefore fewer Labour seats period) to achieve it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

It's a plot to unfairly skew our democracy in the Tories' favour. If you truly care about this country, you'll fight this with all your might. If the rumours are true, of course.

Also, I'm sorry to hear about the MP who got stabbed by that loony in his surgery. I wish him a swift and full recovery.

Originally Posted by Dambrosi

It's gerrymandering, basically.

No, it is ungerrymandering.

Originally Posted by Dambrosi

It's gerrymandering, basically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

:lol Thanks for providing a link to the Wikipedia page for gerrymandering but as an American I'm all to familiar with the concept.

I don't know much about constituency borders, but I do know that in a recent election Labour got pretty much the same percentage of the vote as the Tories did this time, but won far more seats. Why is that?

How were the current borders created? Does every single constituency currently encompass a roughly equal number of citizens, based on the most recent census data? Did Labour not tinker with the constituency borders at all in the last dozen or so years of power?

Originally Posted by Dambrosi

It's gerrymandering, basically....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Fuck yeah. Wikipedia as an argumentative tennis racket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification

Originally Posted by xbhaskarx

I don't know much about constituency borders, but I do know that in a recent election Labour got pretty much the same percentage of the vote as the Tories did this time, but won far more seats. Why is that?

Turnout in safe Labour working class seats is much lower than it is in a Tory country seat.

Originally Posted by Salazar

Fuck yeah. Wikipedia as an argumentative tennis racket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification

The "system" is that the independent boundary commission look at the seats every 8-12 years and adjust to keep them fair. I don't see how you can argue with that, and any attempt by a government to change the boundary by themselves can't be seen as anything other than gerrymandering.

Originally Posted by xbhaskarx

How were the current borders created? Does every single constituency currently encompass a roughly equal number of citizens, based on the most recent census data? Did Labour not tinker with the constituency borders at all in the last dozen or so years of power?

IIRC an average Labour-voting seat has about 50,000 (either voters or population, can't remember which, but it isn't turnout - if you can't persuade your voters to turn out that is your fault) and an average Conservative one 70,000. I'll see if I can find the right numbers, but it is a significant skew.

The Boundary Commission did change boundaries (some of them for this election) - trouble is they are working on old data and lag a long way behind population moves out of the inner cities. So it is not as though this situation was created deliberately I think.

Originally Posted by Sage00

The "system" is that the independent boundary commission look at the seats every 8-12 years and adjust to keep them fair. I don't see how you can argue with that, and any attempt by a government to change the boundary by themselves can't be seen as anything other than gerrymandering.

Remember that what the Tories are proposing is not to change the boundaries themselves but to have the Boundary Commission (the proper body) do a full redrawing of boundaries based on current data and a reduced House of Commons.

Seems perfectly proper to me.

Originally Posted by phisheep

Seems perfectly proper to me.

There's no point trying to convince people like Dambrosi who will always resist any change that makes the electoral system more balance and fairer to the Conservatives. Dambrosi is the one whose main justification for PR is that it will form an 'anti-Conservative majority' that will keep the Tories 'out for a generation'. In other words, Dambrosi will always be hostile to the Tories and will want to keep any system that favours left-wing parties over the Tories.

Thankfully though, the Liberal Democrats recognise the need to both reduce the size of the HoC and properly address the inbuilt Labour bias that harms the LDems' electoral chances too.

Originally Posted by mclem

Just to make it even more bizarre, he seems to be a *ridiculously* popular MP in his own right; if the BBC report is accurate, he's got the biggest majority in the whole house of commons, and had a swing *from* Conservative to Labour this time around; I don't think you could even put it down to wild political unpopularity.

He was responsible for the Digital Economy Bill. I imagine there are a few nutcases out to get him.

Originally Posted by phisheep

Remember that what the Tories are proposing is not to change the boundaries themselves but to have the Boundary Commission (the proper body) do a full redrawing of boundaries based on current data and a reduced House of Commons.

Seems perfectly proper to me.

Ah, really? Fair enough then. But I thought the Boundary Commission was supposed to be independent? If so, how can the government of the day tell them what to do?

And Blazinglord - damn right I'll always be Tory-hostile (or maybe "Torysceptic" is the right word for it :D ) - I was personally on the wrong end of that horrific period we like to call "Thatcher's Britain", and have great difficulty trusting any Tory much farther than I can throw them. However, I'll cautiously give this coalition a chance - and a lot of critical scrutiny. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but if you don't like it, you know where to go.

Originally Posted by Saiyar

He was responsible for the Digital Economy Bill. I imagine there are a few nutcases out to get him.

WHAT?!? I thought the DEBill was Mandelson's idea. Even so, getting STABBED over that's just not on.

Originally Posted by Dambrosi

But I thought the Boundary Commission was supposed to be independent? If so, how can the government of the day tell them what to do?

They are independent so far as setting boundaries goes, but the government (or, more strictly, Parliament) can tell them what to do in terms of how many constituencies - because that's set in law - and in when to do it (i.e. now, rather than dawdle for 12 years).

I believe there is also a consultation process with the political parties and perhaps some horsetrading as well - but nothing remotely resembling gerrymandering.

Originally Posted by Dambrosi

WHAT?!? I thought the DEBill was Mandelson's idea. Even so, getting STABBED over that's just not on.

It was Mandy's idea. Timms is the one that guided it through the Commons.

Originally Posted by Dambrosi

And Blazinglord - damn right I'll always be Tory-hostile (or maybe "Torysceptic" is the right word for it :D ) - I was personally on the wrong end of that horrific period we like to call "Thatcher's Britain", and have great difficulty trusting any Tory much farther than I can throw them. However, I'll cautiously give this coalition a chance - and a lot of critical scrutiny. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but if you don't like it, you know where to go.

Know your place pleb!

Seriously though, I think it would be exceedingly generous to call your commentary 'critical scrutiny'. You're GAF's Mehdi Hasan (the tetchy one off Question Time on Thursday). You could at least lay off Clintonism hyperbole - I mean gerrymandering, really? Not everything is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy underpinned by Murdoch et al.

Vince Cable was given Mandy's governement Jaguar.

Ed Miliband is now running for labour party leader

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684063.stm

Cant say he seems the leadership type personally

Originally Posted by Mr Cola

Ed Miliband is now running for labour party leader

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684063.stm

Cant say he seems the leadership type personally

Popular within the party and with the unions. A modern day Bukharin.

Originally Posted by Mr Cola

Ed Miliband is now running for labour party leader

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684063.stm

Cant say he seems the leadership type personally

Ah the Miliband brothers.
What are the odds of two brothers ending up in the same party and running for leadership at the same time?

Originally Posted by Zenith

Vince Cable was given Mandy's governement Jaguar.

After Cameron appointed him as Business Sec, he exited back onto Downing St walked straight past it without realising. "Your car sir, your car!". :lol

at least ed didn't try and cover up the last governments complicity in torture like his brother. i'd quite like my opposition leader to have an actual moral compass.

He doesnt have any stature though, he doesnt strike one as a leader, no charisma and hardly an eloquent speaker. It would be hard to picture people voting for him.

Originally Posted by Mr Cola

He doesnt have any stature though, he doesnt strike one as a leader, no charisma and hardly an eloquent speaker. It would be hard to picture people voting for him.

Yeah, I have nothing against the man but he doesn't strike me as a party leader.

Then again, none of the Labour party right now do.

You know why the coalition will work?

The characters in charge will allow Whitehall to run the show.

About fucking time.

Fuck anyone against this coalition government.

Originally Posted by PJV3

Has anybody seen Charles Kennedy since the coalition was formed?.
He's a high profile Lib-Dem and i haven't seen him anywhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...oalition-views

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the coalition, but nor is it disloyal enough to require Clegg to withdraw the whip from the old alcoholic.

Interesting article about why Number 10's front door is so shiny:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8677004.stm

Just seen Andy Marr interviewing Cameron this morning, he already looks shattered, double bagged eyes, and though he handled Marr well, he did start to get tetchy when interrupted and called on not answering questions.

Hated the bloody Daily Mail Aussie woman on the papers though...God what a bitch.

>Daily Mail...

>Aussie Feminist Bitch...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8685125.stm

OH SHIT LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE

Originally Posted by Subliminal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8685125.stm

OH SHIT LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE

*mind explode*

Originally Posted by blazinglord

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the coalition, but nor is it disloyal enough to require Clegg to withdraw the whip from the old alcoholic.

That's a very measured response from Kennedy. I especially like the way that not once during the article did he presume to know what party members thought, or to tell them what they should think - in sharp contrast to many other commentators.

Originally Posted by Subliminal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8685125.stm

OH SHIT LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE

FFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Originally Posted by Empty

Liberal Conservatives is better because the idea of liberals and conservatives working together should blow the minds of americans.

Originally Posted by Acheteedo

It's better that way, being a borderline oxymoron :D

Originally Posted by Jexhius

*mind explode*

You guys *are* aware of the name of Australia's conservative party, right?

Originally Posted by Paulathon

You guys *are* aware of the name of Australia's conservative party, right?

Is it-- is it (whisper it) the Liberal Party?

I'm going to stand by the Conservative Democrats - AKA the Con Dems - as my name for them.

Originally Posted by Paulathon

You guys *are* aware of the name of Australia's conservative party, right?

The British Liberal Democrats are genuinely socially Liberal, though. Australia's Liberal Party, Japan's Liberal Democrats, etc are social conservatives behind their economic liberalism, and so kind of betray their name.

Originally Posted by Sage00

The British Liberal Democrats are genuinely socially Liberal, though. Australia's Liberal Party, Japan's Liberal Democrats, etc are social conservatives behind their economic liberalism, and so kind of betray their name.

Indeed. I mean, we invented Liberalism goddamit, and we know how it should actually be used!

Found this nifty pic just now, will be interesting to see how much the LibCon coalition will cut.

Originally Posted by Gary Whitta

Interesting article about why Number 10's front door is so shiny:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8677004.stm

I thought you were joking so I clicked through. It is an article on why the door at Number 10 is so shiny. Remarkably, it is also interesting. This has been a learning process for me and one that I feel has made me richer. Do not judge a book by its cover, even if the cover accurately portrays the contents of the book.

My goodness this afternoon is dragging on :(

Originally Posted by SmokyDave

I thought you were joking so I clicked through. It is an article on why the door at Number 10 is so shiny. Remarkably, it is also interesting. This has been a learning process for me and one that I feel has made me richer. Do not judge a book by its cover, even if the cover accurately portrays the contents of the book.

My goodness this afternoon is dragging on :(

Something I didn't know about Downing Street is that the brickwork of the houses is actually a very old load of fakery.

Downing employed Sir Christopher Wren to design his houses. Although large, they were put up quickly and cheaply on soft soil with shallow foundations. The fronts, for example, were facades with lines painted on the surface imitating brick mortar. Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote that Number 10 was "shaky and lightly built by the profiteering contractor whose name they bear."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7128387.ece

Another slightly dodgy move. You shouldn't do these things in back room deals.
They are also combining the Lords/Commons whips office so bye bye scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Shanadeus

Found this nifty pic just now, will be interesting to see how much the LibCon coalition will cut.

I always do a double-take when I see David McCandless's (or indeed Marcus Berkmann's, he crops up a few times) name on a 'serious' piece. He wrote for Your Sinclair, dammit! He's supposed to be, like, bonkers.

Originally Posted by PJV3

Another slightly dodgy move. You shouldn't do these things in back room deals.

The Cabinet Room - does it really qualify as a back room?

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

The Cabinet Room - does it really qualify as a back room?

Senior Lib Dems said that the coalition must fulfil its promise to appoint Lib Dem peers. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Lib Dem peer, said: “The coalition agreement entitles us to at least 50 more new Lib Dem peers to reflect our share of the vote on May 6. This is a key part of the coalition package for Liberal Democrats and a real test of our new Government’s good faith.”


This was done before they got into No 10.(i think)