The UK is "Hung",

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
The UK is "Hung",

+_+

Augustus

Labour loses another seat to the Conservatives in Warwick & Leamington.

 

Still about 25 seats to go.

NorthReport

This looks like the one chance for Labour to maintain power. I would imagine there will now be a huge fight within the Labour Party over whether Brown should resign for the good of the party. I don't get the impression Brown will go quietly, but what's most important here.

 

"It was possible that if Gordon Brown resigned as Labour leader, a reformist candidate such as Alan Johnson could take over, promise a time-limited government to deliver electoral reform, and go to the polls again in nine months or a year."

NorthReport

It is now mathematically impossible for the Conservatives to get a majority government.

NorthReport

Nick Clegg's fateful declaration for Cameron

For a Lib Dem leader hoping to play kingmaker, an apparent endorsement of a minority Tory government is a sorry result

By any reckoning, power is likely to prove a poisoned chalice for whoever takes over. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/nick-clegg-david-cam...

Augustus

NorthReport wrote:

It is now mathematically impossible for the Conservatives to get a majority government.

We've known that for several hours.

 

Anyway, Labour regains their seat in London that they lost to George Galloway last time.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives hold their stronghold seat in Saffron Walden

NorthReport

It was a disappointing nite for the Conservatives, and the Cons would only speed their demise by agreeing to electoral reform. What to do, what to do. Laughing

Augustus

It was a disappointing night for all 3 parties, as none of them got exactly what they wanted.

But it was most disappointing for Gordon Brown, and he is the one in the most vulnerable position of all right now.  Laughing

adma

To go back to this post

http://rabble.ca/comment/1139901/Augustus-wrote-Try-what

=============================

Augustus wrote: Try what again? Thatcher won 3 back to back majorities from UK voters and holds the record as the longest-serving PM of the last century. She also came #1 in a 2008 poll of UK voters' favourite PM: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/apr/07/post3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/themargaretthatcheryears/1584... http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/DT080401thatche... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_living_legacy_of_m... Try to look at this objectively, by putting your own personal dislike of Thatcher aside, otherwise you can't expect to be taken seriously as a political analyst.

-------------------------------------------------------

These polls show that Thatcher is very popular with the 35% of the population that support the Tories. But among the rest of the population, Thatcher is not popular. Whole sections of the UK are political wastelands for the Conservatives thanks to Thatcher's legacy.

=========================================

That's close enough to my point, generally speaking; while it's ridiculous to blanket-label Thatcherism as fascism, it's also ridiculous to claim that it didn't drive away big numbers of voters. The Thatcher era did mark the dawn of a "red/blue split" in British political culture, where geography and sectors where the Tories once might have been competitive went off-radar.  Even while Maggie was hitting electoral heights, places like Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester went the other way.  Of course, Thatcherism may also have drawn in big numbers of voters--Britain's "Reagan Democrats", so to speak--but my point nonetheless holds.

And I'm saying that as someone not necessarily so reactive about a Cameron gov't, or Nick Clegg's willingness to make a deal with Cameron.

Augustus

The Conservatives have now reached 300 seats.  That is an important psychological and symbolic number.

Polls on the BBC right now also appear to indicate that most people think David Cameron should become Prime Minister.  

Wellington

Augustus wrote:

 

The Conservatives have now reached 300 seats.  That is an important psychological and symbolic number.

 

 

Don't know about the psychology or symbolism of it, but an interesting analyis of the practical implications of 300 seats in article in the Guardian (note it was written before voting day) :

"A more nuanced idea of where the winning post is on election night is therefore 326 for a technical majority, 320 for an effective majority, 310 for a single party government without agreements with other parties, and around 300 for an undisputed, if provisional, right to govern."

 

JKR

Clegg should holdout for electoral reform. Nothing less will do.

23% of the voters voted for the LibDems but they will only receive 9% of the seats in the House of Commons!!  How pathetic is that.

If the LibDems don't fight for electoral reform now, they might as well close up shop and quit politics.

Clegg should give power to Cameron or Brown on the basis of who delivers better electoral reform.

JKR

Augustus wrote:

The Conservatives have now reached 300 seats.  That is an important psychological and symbolic number.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats have now reached 314 seats. (12 more then the Conservatives.) That is also is an important and symbolic number.

Another symbolic number is 52% That's the number of voters who voted for the Liberal Democrats and Labour. A clear majority.

These numbers show that Clegg can legitimately choose either Cameron or Brown.

If Cameron wants to be PM, he should offer Clegg significant electoral reform.  

 

NorthReport

These are good results. It gives Labour a chance to replace their leader, and if Clegg is smart, electoral reform. We will now see what kind of a chess player Clegg is.

ghoris

Only two seats left to declare. One of these, Thirsk and Malton, will not vote until May 27 due to the death of one of the candidates. It's a safe Tory seat, however, so we can put it in Cameron's column. The other seat, Devon West and Torridge, was also held by the Tories going into this election, but it was targeted by the Lib Dems and the delay in the count might be the result of recounts.

The Tories will therefore end up with 306 or 307 seats, with the combined Labour-Lib Dem seats at 315 or 316 - neither has enough for a majority of seats, although a Labour-Lib Dem coalition could at least claim a majority of popular votes between them.

Very unusual situation.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Well, it's great news that the Conservatives in the U.K. failed to get a majority. Certainly, from a left perspective, the damage is lessened when the Conservatives cannot carry out their nefarious and sinister atrocities. The public has suitably chastised the war-mongering Labour regime and opened the door to much needed electoral reform. Let's see if Lib Dem Clegg has sense enough to help his party.

It would be very amusing if Sinn Fein, represented by none other than the legendary Gerry Adams, held the balance of power. lol. Sinn Fein is now the largest party in Northern Ireland. Choke on it, Ian Paisley. ha ha. Adams was returned with a "thumping victory" of 71% in West Belfast.  And a very, very good sign is that plenty of unionists helped Adams in his overwhelming victory.

Edited to add: "Nationalists" = Sinn Fein + Plaid Cymru + Scottish Nationalists = 5 + 3 + 6 = 14;

Labour + Lib Dem + "nationalists" = 258 + 57 + 14 = 329. The magic number is 326.

 

Star Spangled C...

If there's a silver lining it's that George Galloway (Hamas - Bethnal Green and Bow) lost his seat.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Yes, all the racists, Zionists and bigots are undoubtedly happy to see the outstanding 23 year veteran of the Parliament lose his seat. However, I would expect Galloway to now have lots of time ... to visit Canada!! lol. lol.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Sinn Fein rarely show up to vote in British parliament. They're not that interested, y'know?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The extreme right wing Fox News is berating the Conservatives for losing a 19% advantage  in the period leading up to the election.

F. Luntz wrote:
And what does that mean for an American voter watching this? Is that you cannot count your chickens before they are hatched. You cannot assume that the election results - just because people are angry, just because they want something new, it doesn't mean that they actually will deliver it on Election Day.

They are, however, expecting a Conservative "governing majority" about which they have nothing to say.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Catchfire: actually, the SD and Labour Party - presumably closer to Labour than to the Conservatives - has 3 seats and could take the place of the 5 Sinn Fein M.P.s and the total would still be > 326.

genstrike

Shouldn't the magic number be 323?

650 seats, subtract the 5 Sinn Fein seats leaves 645.

So, you would need 322 + speaker (Conservative) or 323 to win

Stockholm

JKR wrote:

23% of the voters voted for the LibDems but they will only receive 9% of the seats in the House of Commons!!  How pathetic is that.

Quite frankly, while it may be "pathetic" if you're a Liberal Democratic party member or candidate - to the other 99.999999% of the population - the reaction is "so what? what's it to me?". Honestly, if i'm the average Brit, why am i supposed to marching in the streets in fury because some middle of the road, wishy-washy centrist party only got 57 seats out of 650 when their share of the popular vote should have given them 120. How does it change anyone's life? Its not as if the Lib Dems stand for anything particularly bold - the only advantage to them having more seats is that 60 more people get paid a salary to be a LibDem MP - to the rest of the British population - it means nothing.

This is why you can only go so far with fighting for electoral reform - it always end up looking like aa self-serving argument where parties support it because it means more seats for them - and not because it means anything to the average person.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Low-Hanging Fruit
Posted May 7, 2010

This hung parliament is the first and possibly last chance we have to transform politics. We must seize it.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 7th May 2010.

quote:
The fight starts tomorrow, with rallies in London, Glasgow, Manchester, Bristol, Middlesborough, Oxford and possibly a few other cities. It’s being coordinated by the kind of wide-ranging coalition we’ve needed for years, as almost all the major reform campaigns - Power2010, Make Votes Count, Unlock Democracy, the Electoral Reform Society, Ekklesia, Compass, Hang ‘em, Vote for a Change and others - have settled their differences and come together. (The only name missing from the list is 38 Degrees, which appears to have decided that its real enemies are other democracy campaigns). Most encouragingly some of the big environment groups - Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the New Economics Foundation - have joined the coalition, knowing that much of what they hope to achieve is impossible under the corrupt old system. Greenpeace and FoE bring mass membership to the campaign, and their presence should encourage other NGOs to join......

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/05/07/low-hanging-fruit-2/

lewig

Would you say the same to the 28-33% of Canadians who continue to support the Liberal Party of Canada? If so, you're disenfranchising the squishy middle, which is a lot of folks.

From Stockholm:

Quite frankly, while it may be "pathetic" if you're a Liberal Democratic party member or candidate - to the other 99.999999% of the population - the reaction is "so what? what's it to me?". Honestly, if i'm the average Brit, why am i supposed to marching in the streets in fury because some middle of the road, wishy-washy centrist party only got 57 seats out of 650 when their share of the popular vote should have given them 120. How does it change anyone's life? Its not as if the Lib Dems stand for anything particularly bold - the only advantage to them having more seats is that 60 more people get paid a salary to be a LibDem MP - to the rest of the British population - it means nothing.

This is why you can only go so far with fighting for electoral reform - it always end up looking like aa self-serving argument where parties support it because it means more seats for them - and not because it means anything to the average person.

[/quote]

Joey Ramone

Stockholm wrote:

Honestly, if i'm the average Brit, why am i supposed to marching in the streets in fury because some middle of the road, wishy-washy centrist party only got 57 seats out of 650 when their share of the popular vote should have given them 120. How does it change anyone's life? Its not as if the Lib Dems stand for anything particularly bold - the only advantage to them having more seats is that 60 more people get paid a salary to be a LibDem MP - to the rest of the British population - it means nothing.

I wouldn't vote for the LibDems, but I might vote for one of the small parties to the left of Labour.  Anyway, regardless of who you would vote for, shouldn't we all want a more representative, democratic Parliament?  Is winning seats all that matters?  If the left doesn't stand for bigger values, including greater democracy, regardless of which party benefits from greater democracy, what does it stand for?

Stockholm

The Liberals are not particularly "under-represented" in the Canadian House of Commons and very few people who vote Liberal could even tell you exactly how many seats the Liberals have - all they know is that the Liberals are not in power.

As I've said many times, I am 100% in favour of proportional representation - but I also don't delude myself into that an arcane debate about electoral systems is really of interest to the vast majority of people. Once you get past a few political science majors - who else really cares?

The average person cares about outcomes for them. They don't care about whether "wishy-washy centrist party" has 60 or 80 seats at Westminster - what am I supposed to care?? They also don't care if a couple of people on the far left and far right get admission to the debating society of the House of Commons. They actually have PR right now when the UK elects people to the European parliament and the turnout in EU elections is abysmally low.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Anyway, regardless of who you would vote for, shouldn't we all want a more representative, democratic Parliament?  Is winning seats all that matters?  If the left doesn't stand for bigger values, including greater democracy, regardless of which party benefits from greater democracy, what does it stand for?

 

I don't disagree. But then you've got NDP governments who don't appear to really care all that badly about implementing a PR system that wouldn't benefit them any more than it would benefit, say, the Liberals in Ontario.

 

I wonder if there is, from anywhere in the world, an example of a sitting government taking the initiative to implement PR against their own best interest? And if so, how that was explained to supporters?

 

"Yes, this will mean that the opposition will likely take power next election, but we believe it's the right thing to do".

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Anyway, regardless of who you would vote for, shouldn't we all want a more representative, democratic Parliament?  Is winning seats all that matters?  If the left doesn't stand for bigger values, including greater democracy, regardless of which party benefits from greater democracy, what does it stand for?

 

I don't disagree. But then you've got NDP governments who don't appear to really care all that badly about implementing a PR system that wouldn't benefit them any more than it would benefit, say, the Liberals in Ontario.

 

I wonder if there is, from anywhere in the world, an example of a sitting government taking the initiative to implement PR against their own best interest? And if so, how that was explained to supporters?

 

"Yes, this will mean that the opposition will likely take power next election, but we believe it's the right thing to do".

Polunatic2

Quote:
(Stockholm) This is why you can only go so far with fighting for electoral reform

Just what are the reasons for your opposition to PR? 

Stockholm

I already said that I support PR - but I think its a waste of time for a political to campaign on it because the public cares about what benefits and is fair to them NOT what benefits or is fair or unfair to this or that political party.

This is the whole problem with the way proponents of PR tend to argue their case. It always boils down to whining about how the current system is unfair to certain political parties. Most people hate politics and hate political parties - they don't give a damn if a few Lib Dems are sulking because they didn't get enough seats. Why am I suppose to care about the results being unafir to the Liberal Democratic party??? I care about what's fair or unfair to ME!

Policywonk

Wellington wrote:

Augustus wrote:

 

The Conservatives have now reached 300 seats.  That is an important psychological and symbolic number.

 

 

Don't know about the psychology or symbolism of it, but an interesting analyis of the practical implications of 300 seats in article in the Guardian (note it was written before voting day) :

"A more nuanced idea of where the winning post is on election night is therefore 326 for a technical majority, 320 for an effective majority, 310 for a single party government without agreements with other parties, and around 300 for an undisputed, if provisional, right to govern."

 

That was assuming more of a breakthrough for the Lib Dems and therefore a greater plurality of seats. The numbers should be 326 for an absolute majority and 323 for an effective majority (assuming Sinn Fein do not participate), with the other numbers depending on the gap between the party with the most seats and the next party. If there were two parties with more than 300 then it would obviously depend on negotiations with the smaller parties. No party or coalition has an undisputed right to govern unless they can show they have the confidence of the House of Commons.

Polunatic2

Quote:
the public cares about what benefits and is fair to them NOT what benefits or is fair or unfair to this or that political party.

Electoral reform IS about fairness to voters. Politicians who claim to support PR need to show leadership on the issue - not look for bullshit "principled" excuses to not talk about it or educate their members and base. 

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

I already said that I support PR - but I think its a waste of time for a political to campaign on it because the public cares about what benefits and is fair to them NOT what benefits or is fair or unfair to this or that political party.

This is the whole problem with the way proponents of PR tend to argue their case. It always boils down to whining about how the current system is unfair to certain political parties. Most people hate politics and hate political parties - they don't give a damn if a few Lib Dems are sulking because they didn't get enough seats. Why am I suppose to care about the results being unafir to the Liberal Democratic party??? I care about what's fair or unfair to ME!

Except that the first past the post system is unfair to the majority of people.

Stockholm

The problem is that unless someone has a graduate degree in political science explaining why exactly PR is so much fairer to them as an individual would require them to enrol in a political science course on comparative electoral systems and ask them each to write research and write essay on "why proportional representation is "fairer" to the average person than FPTP". 

You MIGHT be able to make the case if the Tories had won a majority with only 37% of the vote and then brought in an ideological reign of terror despite 63% of the population having votes against them. But the reality is that yesterday's UK election was actually a case where FPTP worked quite well. The party with the most votes got the most seats. The party with the most votes that fell far short of a majority of votes did NOT get a majority of seats. The second place party is the official opposition. The third party got somewhat fewer seats than they might have wanted but still holds the balance of power. A Green managed to get elected under FPTP. This is one case where under FPTP people more or less got what they voted for - and i don't think people will get all that excited about Nick Clegg having a tantrum because he got 57 seats when he shoudl have had 100!

 

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

JKR wrote:

23% of the voters voted for the LibDems but they will only receive 9% of the seats in the House of Commons!!  How pathetic is that.

Quite frankly, while it may be "pathetic" if you're a Liberal Democratic party member or candidate - to the other 99.999999% of the population - the reaction is "so what? what's it to me?". Honestly, if i'm the average Brit, why am i supposed to marching in the streets in fury because some middle of the road, wishy-washy centrist party only got 57 seats out of 650 when their share of the popular vote should have given them 120. How does it change anyone's life? Its not as if the Lib Dems stand for anything particularly bold - the only advantage to them having more seats is that 60 more people get paid a salary to be a LibDem MP - to the rest of the British population - it means nothing.

This is why you can only go so far with fighting for electoral reform - it always end up looking like aa self-serving argument where parties support it because it means more seats for them - and not because it means anything to the average person.

99.999999% is a ridiculous bit of hyperbole. The Greens, while they got more seats (1) than they would have with the same number of votes in a straight Party list PR system with a threshold of around four percent (more than enough to shut out the BNP in this election), could expect more votes in any PR system. Similarly perhaps with other small non-regional parties. I think anyone with a modicum of fairness would agree that the Lib Dems were short-changed by the British electoral system, even more than the NDP is federally in ours. That doesn't mean that the Lib Dems wouldn't be seen as self-serving in this case if they rejected a deal with the Conservatives that would provide a stable minority or coalition that provided them with some concrete concessions. Electoral reform has been a major plank for the Lib Dems for decades and they got almost a quarter of the votes. A lukewarm proposal from the Conservatives on electoral reform will not be enough. A deal between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems may well fall apart on other issues, and then the small parties will be major factor.

The fact that between Labour and the Lib Dems they have more seats than the Conservatives and more than 50% of the vote makes a Labour-Lib Dem government far more legitimate than a Liberal/NDP government in Canada, although not as legitimate as a Conservative/Lib Dem government, which would have more votes and an absolute majority of course.

 

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

The problem is that unless someone has a graduate degree in political science explaining why exactly PR is so much fairer to them as an individual would require them to enrol in a political science course on comparative electoral systems and ask them each to write research and write essay on "why proportional representation is "fairer" to the average person than FPTP". 

You MIGHT be able to make the case if the Tories had won a majority with only 37% of the vote and then brought in an ideological reign of terror despite 63% of the population having votes against them. But the reality is that yesterday's UK election was actually a case where FPTP worked quite well. The party with the most votes got the most seats. The party with the most votes that fell far short of a majority of votes did NOT get a majority of seats. The second place party is the official opposition. The third party got somewhat fewer seats than they might have wanted but still holds the balance of power. A Green managed to get elected under FPTP. This is one case where under FPTP people more or less got what they voted for - and i don't think people will get all that excited about Nick Clegg having a tantrum because he got 57 seats when he shoudl have had 100!

 

Try 150, with only 6% less of the vote than Labour. And the two major parties in terms of seats can also be seen as even more self-serving and undemocratic by opposing PR (that applies to the NDP provincially in Canada as well). The media are certainly talking about PR and coalitions, at least the BBC. The Lib Dems do have the balance of power, but would have even more power with more seats (under a proportional system Labour and the Lib Dems would have a majority of seats as well as a majority of votes between them and thus the Lib Dems would have even more say in who forms the government, as they cannot now prevent the Conservatives from forming a government with the support of other parties, an option not available to Labour).

outwest

"23% of the voters voted for the LibDems but they will only receive 9% of the seats in the House of Commons!!  How pathetic is that."

 

Not nearly as pathetic as the first-past-the-post system in Alberta where 47% of the total vote resulted in 13% of the seats in the legislature in the last election! How frustrating do you think that is to progressive voters? 40% of the total were progressive opposition votes. (And people think all Albertans vote the same.)

If that dismal little result isn't a good enough cause for pre-election cooperation between the splintered opposition parties: Libs, NDs, and Greens, I don't know what is.  But go figure. The NDP won't play ball, and perhaps not the Liberals either. We'll see.  A resolution on cooperation is being put forth at the Liberal Convention, this weekend.

 

KenS

Policywonk wrote:

The media are certainly talking about PR and coalitions, at least the BBC.

Dont be trying to draw any parallels from this for Canada. In the UK its like they just discovered all this can happen- thats the basis of the media jabbering. The possibilities of coalitions and all that is sexy for the moment. They barely mention that they are much more likely to get what we have in Canada.... the Tories governing without any formal agreements, and so on.

I think the LDP does have some leverage for keeping reform on the burner no matter what the governing arrangements. As much leverage as could be hoped for. The opportunity could not be better set. But we'll see how that goes. My prediction: even with more leverage than in Canada because of the degree of disproportionality in this outcome, that they dont get far with it.

Who could possibly have more incentive than the LDP? So if and when it does fizzle, I'll remind you all when you go on your next jags that the reason we don't have PR is because no politicians really give a shit.

Policywonk

outwest wrote:

"23% of the voters voted for the LibDems but they will only receive 9% of the seats in the House of Commons!!  How pathetic is that."

 

Not nearly as pathetic as the first-past-the-post system in Alberta where 47% of the total vote resulted in 13% of the seats in the legislature in the last election! How frustrating do you think that is to progressive voters? 40% of the total were progressive opposition votes. (And people think all Albertans vote the same.)

If that dismal little result isn't a good enough cause for pre-election cooperation between the splintered opposition parties: Libs, NDs, and Greens, I don't know what is.  But go figure. The NDP won't play ball, and perhaps not the Liberals either. We'll see.  A resolution on cooperation is being put forth at the Liberal Convention, this weekend.

The Alberta Green Party has been de-registered. All the Liberals want to do is absorb the NDP. Any resemblance to a principled progressive party is illusory, especially in light of their reversal on royalties.

Policywonk

KenS wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

The media are certainly talking about PR and coalitions, at least the BBC.

Dont be trying to draw any parallels from this for Canada. In the UK its like they just discovered all this can happen- thats the basis of the media jabbering. The possibilities of coalitions and all that is sexy for the moment. They barely mention that they are much more likely to get what we have in Canada.... the Tories governing without any formal agreements, and so on.

I think the LDP does have some leverage for keeping reform on the burner no matter what the governing arrangements. As much leverage as could be hoped for. The opportunity could not be better set. But we'll see how that goes. My prediction: even with more leverage than in Canada because of the degree of disproportionality in this outcome, that they dont get far with it.

Who could possibly have more incentive than the LDP? So if and when it does fizzle, I'll remind you all when you go on your next jags that the reason we don't have PR is because no politicians really give a shit.

Or not enough of them anyway. I expect the Lib Dems will accept a few crumbs from the Conservatives in exchange for support, but hope springs eternal. They are more likely to get what we have in Canada, but there is also somewhat if not much more potential for something different.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

KenS wrote:
Dont be trying to draw any parallels from this for Canada. In the UK its like they just discovered all this can happen- thats the basis of the media jabbering. The possibilities of coalitions and all that is sexy for the moment.

The Guardian has been actively supporting and lobbying for Proportional Representation for more than 100 years.

Snert Snert's picture

Then you would agree that Ontarians and BC residents also "got" PR, and simply rejected it then?  If so, case closed for another couple of decades.

Of course there are those who'll whine and complain that PR wasn't properly explained to the electorate, but c'mon, it's not rocket surgery.  Right?  The people have spoken and the people don't want it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

The problem is that unless someone has a graduate degree in political science explaining why exactly PR is so much fairer to them as an individual would require them to enrol in a political science course on comparative electoral systems and ask them each to write research and write essay on "why proportional representation is "fairer" to the average person than FPTP".

Ahh. The old, people are stupid arguement. It's a common falacy that ones own limitations are reflective of the norm. Frankly, if British people are capable of understanding the racing form, they are capable of getting PR. PR, in fact is less complicated than most odds deduction systems at the race track. The British even bet on election outcomes.

Joey Ramone

Snert wrote:

it's not rocket surgery.  Right? 

LOL

Cueball Cueball's picture

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Look, a Don Cherry malapropism. Or is that a Ricky TPB malapropism?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture
NDPP

already posted this to the lawrence martin/third party thread but it is probably more appropriately here - John Pilger on the election:

Voting in Britain for War: Take Your Pick

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19035

"all three party leaders are warmongers"

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

"The limbs of children in trees do not exist." Pilger has a way of lifting the covers on the atrocities of imperialism, doesn't he?

Thanks for the reminder. War is the greatest of crimes because, in the words of the Nuremberg Tribunal, it contains all other crimes within it.

An interesting detail that I've learned: Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats in Westminister since that would require that they swear an oath of loyalty to the English Crown. Every civil servant in Canada still has to swear such an oath. Even term employees.

Stockholm

I think people understand what PR "is". They just understand why its supposed to be such a panacea.

Pages

Topic locked