Supplying Confidence. Nick & Dave – it’s the economy, stupid (not voting reform). Give Gordon a ring.

by
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”
  • Comment at end

    8th May 2010

    Just heard on BBC Radio4’s Any Answers, several commenters  suggestions of a government of national unity. Nice to know that I am not the only one suggesting that. You heard it here first.

    A “Confidence & Supply” arrangement WON’T be enough

    Some say we’ll have an agreement beetween the Tories and the Lib Dems by Sunday afternoon. Others say that would be far too soon for considered thinking. If they do get it together, it may not even be a full coalition, but on an ad hoc confidence and supply arrangement.

    Considering that it’s the economy stupid, and not voting reform which is the BIG issue, and considering that there is a world out there which appreciates strong British leadership and direction, everything I have seen and heard so far brings me back to my previous thoughts here – Result of the UK election points to … WHAT? A National Government, OBVIOUSLY! But that would require utter failure between the present chats between the Tories and the Lib Dems. Not exactly a good basis for a future multi-party government. On the other hand, A week or so ago Dave was saying that Nick talked nonsense on the importance of electoral reform. Now he may be in the midst of a Damascene conversion. Needs must.

    Mr Clegg is likely to use his party’s rules as a bargaining chip in talks with other parties, arguing that unless he gets enough concessions to satisfy his activists on key issues like electoral reform, a deal will not be approved. Under Lib Dem party rules, a leader making a power-sharing deal in a hung parliament must open a “triple lock” before the party can formally accept. (Photo: REX)

    Picture above and explanation of the Lib Dems triple lock safeguards – by James Kirkup at the Telegraph

    SO WHAT IS THE SHORT-TERM FUTURE OF THE PRESENT PRIME MINISTER?

    Gordon Brown speaks to the nation and his political opponents following the general election, May 6th 2010

    Like the rest of us I have no idea.

    And meanwhile the voices of opinion are raised. For instance Nick Cohen says at The Guardian

    Don’t walk away, Nick – If the Lib Dems are brave enough to go into coalition with the Tories, they will earn the public’s respect”.

    Well, maybe. Or perhaps they’ll ALL come round to my way of thinking. That would keep all the bunnies happy and give all parties an interest in successful handling of the economic issues.

    From David Hare, Guardian – ‘New Labour RIP’

    Tony Blair ... after three election victories and Iraq, New Labour was living on borrowed time. At this time the burden of leadership may be too heavy for one individual. (Photograph: Dan Chung/The Guardian)

    “….(omitted part of this , because  I’m the boss at this blog and I don’t agree with Mr Hare’s Iraq remark) …When we look back in a few years’ time, it’s all going to be clear … New Labour was living on borrowed time. They scrambled one further election, ingloriously, in 2005 – “I have listened and learned,” said Tony Blair, and then went on to demonstrate he had done neither – but, unwilling to re-make themselves while still in office and to hand power on to a new generation, New Labour never had a prayer of scrambling a second.

    […]

    When Gordon Brown appeared to respond to his own re-election, he was talking sonorously of duty and to thank those who knew him best. New Labour, born, remember, in the ashes of Neil Kinnock’s bitter defeat on 9 April 1992, lost vital signs at 1.40am this morning in Kirkcaldy.”

    Well, maybe.

    RELATED

    Labour hold Tony Blair’s old seat of Sedgefield

    “Labour have retained Tony Blair’s old parliamentary seat of Sedgefield. Phil Wilson polled 18,141 votes, a majority of 8,696 over Neil Mahapatra for the Conservatives. There was a large swing of 11.6% from Labour to the Conservatives on a turnout of 62.1%.”

    The front pages of the first editions are popping into our inbox now at a rate of knots. Another not overly enamoured with the situation at Westminster is the Daily Mail with its headline “Now for the shabby deals”, expanding on its theme with the strapline “As the election descends into shambles, Cameron and Brown battle for crushed Clegg’s support”.

    The Sun is really not terribly impressed by the turn of events as the UK deals with a hung Parliament. It’s front page headline is “Squatter holed up in No 10” over a picture of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. “Man, 59 refuses to leave house in Downing Street” is the paper’s take on Mr Brown’s decision to use his constitutional right to stay on as PM.

    Fraser Nelson on Twitter

    Cameron has 2.03m more votes than Brown (so far). His share of vote: 36.2% Blair had 35.3% in 2005. This is the Tory case for minority gvt.

    The Daily Mail has this: “Now for the shabby deals”, expanding on its theme with the strapline “As the election descends into shambles, Cameron and Brown battle for crushed Clegg’s support”.




    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

    23 Responses to “Supplying Confidence. Nick & Dave – it’s the economy, stupid (not voting reform). Give Gordon a ring.”

    1. celia walters Says:

      well the latest is the Tory 1922 Comittee is meeting on Mon evening to discuss the situation with Lib dem’s many Tory backbenchers are annoyed with the way Cameron has gone to the lib-dem’s without consulting his own party first

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Yes, but the Tory party is not constructed for party democracy, unlike the Lib Dems. I am NOT a Lib Dem, but believe me, I know a lot about them from a past life, as it were.

    2. ‘Unlocking’ Democracy? A can of worms « Tony Blair Says:

      […] Tony Blair « Supplying Confidence. Nick & Dave – it’s the economy, stupid (not voting reform). Gi… […]

    3. Neal Says:

      “it’s the economy stupid, and not voting reform which is the BIG issue”…

      Actually it’s carrying out the will of your electorate, and not autonomous leadership which is the BIG issue. If you want a strong leadership that’s more successful with economics than it is at listening to its own people, go and live in China …..no? ….thought not !

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Neal,

        And WHAT exactly, in your HUMBLE opinion, is the will of the electorate?

        Not sure?

        Thought so.

        I am suggesting that ALL parties work together in order to work out the BIG issue. That is what people invariably say they want. The big issue IS the economy, NOT P.R., or getting rid of the rest of The Lords, etc, even if purist myopics think it is.

    4. Neal Says:

      And WHAT exactly, in your HUMBLE opinion, is the will of the electorate?

      If we keep focusing on “leadership and the economy” instead of asking them (via a more represenational voting system) then none of can be sure. that’s the whole point.

      Isn’t it ?

      Yes.. thought so.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Neal, your innocence is sweet.

        There IS no ‘will of the electorate’. It varies on all issues as the situation changes.

        People vote for ALL sorts of reasons, usually too many to allow them to focus religiously on any particular party. Unless, of course they are purist Lib Dems in which case they are lulled into the naive belief that with P.R. all will become clear on ALL policies. It just isn’t so.

        Many people with a little modesty and realism would rather hand over the big decisions to politicians, who have the time and interest and the job to study policy and their interactions and relationships in depth. That’s why they are elected. I have no interest in what the average politically and economically ignorant person thinks is the answer to the world’s economic problems. If I did I’d have millions of different opinions with which to juggle.

        THAT’S where leadership comes in.

        That’s what we are missing right now.

        ALL parties need to get together and see if they can find leadership and consensus. After all, all the parties represent all the people.

        Democracy, but not yet as we know it.

    5. Neal Says:

      keeptonyblairforpm said “And WHAT exactly, in your HUMBLE opinion, is the will of the electorate? Not sure? Thought so.”

      Of course I’m not sure, and neither are our “leaders” because they spend more time telling us what they want than they do listening to what we want, and when we do try to to “speak” no one can hear us because of the way the voting system works – how convenient is that?

      Politicians keep going on the radio saying that we shouldn’t be talking about political process, but the economy. They’re telling us not to worry our silly little heads over big boy politics (like electoral reform), and even saying that business is more important than democracy.

      “There’s no need for you ordinary people to get involved in how your lives are run”, the say, “just use our biased voting system to vote more or less the same policies in each time and leave it all to us”.

      They are not here to serve our priorities (even if the voting system allowed us to express them, which it doesn’t), we are here to fund their priorities (and their corporate backers) which is why they keep trying to kid everyone, including you it seems, that the “economy” is everything and that that is what we all want to focus on as much as them.

      I can’t beieve people actaully fall for that stuff.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Neal,

        Did you demonstrate with the Fair Voters today, then?

        I wonder what would happen if ALL governments asked the public about every policy. Policy by referendum? If and when the LDs get into power they will soon discover the complexities of decision-making. THEN you’d notice a “hands-off” relationship developing even from them.

        I recall the touble Paddy Ashdown had when he tried to hammer out a deal with Blair in the late 1990s. Even though Blair’s Labour party had just won a landslide HE still wanted to come to a consensual arrangement with the Lib Dems. Paddy was stopped by his party, as was Blair by Brown and Prescott. Paddy was so exhausted by the efforts from within to unsettle his attempts that he stood down shortly afterwards.

        And Blair “the great dictator” went on to bring devolution, reform of the House of Lords, and a Mayor for London under a P.R system.

        If you are not a Lib Dem I conclude that you must be an anarchist.

        I’d rather have ANY of our political parties running things on their own, than anarchy.

    6. Neal Says:

      “Neal, your innocence is sweet.”

      There is no need to patronise me, unless your political arguments as so weak that you have nothing else to offer. But then, maybe….

    7. Neal Says:

      “There IS no ‘will of the electorate’. It varies on all issues as the situation changes.”

      Hang on…
      There is no “will” of the electorate, it varies…..but then “THE big issue is the economy.”

      So which is it, a lot of mysteriously shifting unkown “wills” or just the economy?

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Neal,

        The PRESENT big issue is the economy. A one-off issue. Generational.

        Most of the time there are a lot of issues and more “wills” than you can count. But right now, it’s the ecomomy. Thus a national government of all parties is required. I can’t see why any consensual-thinking person would argue with having consensual politics over the issue which might bring all the rest to nothing unless it is sorted.

    8. Neal Says:

      “Many people with a little modesty and realism would rather hand over the big decisions to politicians, who have the time and interest and the job to study policy and their interactions and relationships in depth.”

      The logical conclusion of that argument would be to just skip the voters altogether and have one or two people decide everything for all of us. After all voters are probably too ignorant to know who’s the best person for the job anyway. So why not just have a dictatorship where the biggest natural-born “leader” takes control and keeps it.

      I’m glad I don’t live in your world…yet.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Of course not. The logical conclusion is that once we elect politicians we let them get on with their jobs.

        People who constantly moan about others need to stand for parliament, and put their money where their mouths are.

        Cue Neal.

    9. Neal Says:

      “And Blair “the great dictator” went on to bring devolution….”

      You mean semi-devolution, the “stuffing” of the English electorate (who are noe the only nation in Europe without their own government) and almost the complete break-up of the Union.

      Yep…that sounds like Blair.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        Devolution was offered to the north-west of England. They rejected it in a referendum, to Prescott’s surprise.

        Democracy?

        Yep, that IS and was Blair.

        How he is missed now.

    10. Neal Says:

      “Sorry, but you’re asking for it.”

      I don’t remember “asking” for anything; certainly not to be patronised. But I accept your apology.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s