DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

think i had 55 more or less right already, also david grosssman sez it was a ~conservative~ priority tho happily they got lib dem lord rentard to flail about in defence of it

amending the constitution just for this one sketchily cribbed together abortion govt.....these cunts have got nerve

The Shadow Minister for Roads AND the Shadow Minister for Leeds. Wonder what he spent more time on?

Nakh, it's not nerve, it's ENTITLEMENT. Cameron's in the door two seconds, under a shaky agreement, and is behaving as if he's got a giant mandate.

A giant what now?

A giant man date

Yeah, it's a gift of a title for the slash that's going around.

Actually I first read that as 'as if he's got a giant manatee' and I was like oh wow...

Gotta say it was a magnanimous gesture for millionaires David Cameron and Nick Clegg to take a 5 percent pay cut. Good to know they're doing their bit.

My first thought was it's some sort of tax dodge.

Oh yes, it would have to be win-win for them to consider it worth doing. A person on £20K is going to be a grand out and will have no way to claw stuff back.

In about three months David Cameron will look like a giant manatee. I call four chins by August bank holiday.

Anyone watching Question Time? Mehdi Hasan laying into the Liberal Democrats and getting some great dirty looks from Simon Hughes. Definitely no slash fiction in their future.

I love the Daily Mirror.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/May/Week2/15631599.jpg

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/May/Week2/15631599.jpg

The "revolting" lead is about the 55% according to BBC News so it's very much otm. "OFFICIAL" lol.

Nakh, it's not nerve, it's ENTITLEMENT. Cameron's in the door two seconds, under a shaky agreement, and is behaving as if he's got a giant mandate.

sure, there's usually something coldly impressive about this sort of arrogation, a glint in the eye or a diminished chutzpah but this could be as stupid as it is presumptuous

that it's tory-driven does show their confidence in being able to sideline the libdems in due course, they won't be able to try for a majority but the libdems are further hamstrung

cameron's wagering that they'll be too fucking pussy to call time on it and will probably be rife with insubordination, but he only needs a small number of libdems to carry legislation and the rest can get tae fuck

the lack of any lib dems in major cabinet positions is a coup, clegg gets deputy pm (a sinecure in this instance) so he won't want any other libdems upstaging him with important jobs and cameron obliges! vince cable will linger about to no purpose then resign with his credibility shattered

there is a sense though that conservative entitlement knows no ends and they'll simply push the lib dems too far, until the humiliation is too great and they'll depose clegg&chums

then 55% may come in to play

Could you take your coat off, love, you don't look ethnic enough
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/media/ALeqM5jQcnBQxp3Y9hTrk2KjyB48P7cjWg?size=l

Nice to see Labour doing their bit to avoid the lol posho stuff you were doing upthread by having a contest likely to be between Oxford graduate David Miliband, Oxford graduate Ed Miliband, Oxford graduate Ed Balls and Cambridge graduate Andy Burnham.

Going to Oxbridge doesn't you make you a posho. Being posh does, obv.

(i.e. yeah fuck those toffs but let's be clear why)

Not much of a fan of Burnham's steez for example but no way does he come from money.

the milis' blood does not exactly run blue yo

Yeah, and it's pointless to pick on not-posh people who've been to Oxbridge. They can at least respond by saying that they totally earned their places.

Gotta say it was a magnanimous gesture for millionaires David Cameron and Nick Clegg to take a 5 percent pay cut. Good to know they're doing their bit.

Surely all of these dudes cockfamers have just received massive pay rises as a result of their shiny new hobag promotions and even if you take 5% off the wage for job, it's still a significant increase for the individual?

Or am i reading this wrong?

i think there is a bigger argument about the nature of the british elite and the labour movement's relationship with it. and the party should have that debate in a way that addresses the real issue, not by nose-thumbing the oxbridge types.

god a year ago i meant to do some primary research on the shared milieu of the labour contenders and the current cabinet 20+ years ago. must get round to it.

how about nose-thumbing the Eton types, is that ok?

not many of them in the labour party iirc, but whatever gets you through the night

Not really comparable though is it?

Or what Suzy said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1278266/COALITION-GOVERNMENT-The-new-politics-More-like-Brokeback-Mountain.html

^^^still got it.

too much fraser nelson on tv lately

He is such an odious little cunt. Genuinely the worst.

worrrrrd

I mean, at least James Delingpole is regarded as a freaky outsider even by Tories. Nelson is right in the centre of the establishment.

Seumas Milne (No new era, 13 May) will no doubt be the first of many pontificating Guardian columnists and leader writers telling us who to choose as the new Labour leader. Given the Guardian's disastrous election, how about minding your own business?

David Wotherspoon

Downholland, West Lancashire

ohh snap

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/12/elite-sharpening-axe-era

Labour has lost five million votes since 1997, four million of them under Tony Blair.

Did not know that. Well done Gordon, you only lost a million voters in under 3 years.

and they were the hardcore ones that even tony couldn't shake.

someone quoting from the future in that article

hotcheddar
12 May 2010, 8:53PM

At least now its only the pro-Chavez/Farc hardline Trot's who simply refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room - the very dangerous budget deficit.

Politics and changed and the good news is the authoritarian far Left is even more isolated than before.

Wake up fools!

"Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s."
(25th May, 2010)

News coming in that Respect has just officially gone under. Rejoice.

The Tories lost 4.5 million in one go between 1992 and 1997 and then lost over a million more in 2001.(xpost)

yeah but that's because tony blair killed them by liberating sussex.

Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s.

this is true, tbf. he said it in the chancellors' debate. wish there had been more debate on the "how". don't think regular folk should bear the brunt of it, but kinda rely on politicians to bring ideas to the table in re balancing the books.

Still really fucking angry about the way all three parties dodged the issue throughout the campaign.

HM is on the money, even if we agree that the national finances need repairing - unsure exactly how much of a given this is - the collusion of all 3 main parties in offering the same solutions is depressing bullshit.

Can someone explain to me what happens to the economy if, as seems likely,

- Wages stay flat
- House prices stay flat
- Unemployment stays flat or gets worse
- Bank lending stays sluggish
- The government raises taxes
- The government institutes massive cuts in every department

?? Where is the light at the end of this tunnel?

I'm pretty sure that the economic orthodoxy is now some deep ideological poison disguised as historical inevitability, but hey, maybe that's cos I'm a Trot.

- and the white man get paid offa alla that

too much fraser nelson on tv lately

What's with that accent too? What is that exactly? 'Orrible bastard.

unsure exactly how much of a given this is

me too. would appreciate being told why the following is wrong: deficit jumped from ~£30bn p.a. pre-crisis to ~£150bn last year. but £130bn of that was the bank bailout which is a one-off cost, you'd hope, and some of which will be recouped in the big bank sell-off.

so why can't we make relatively modest cuts, wait for tax receipts to return to former levels (and eventually exceed them) and pay down the debt slowly without dumping a load of public sector workers on the dole? genuine question for people who understand finance.

general and prolonged strikes tbh

so why can't we make relatively modest cuts, wait for tax receipts to return to former levels (and eventually exceed them) and pay down the debt slowly without dumping a load of public sector workers on the dole? genuine question for people who understand finance.

all govts running pretty huge current deficits because their spending levels grew so much during boom times, is my basic understanding. 'modest cuts' won't cover it.

Re Frazzle Nelson: I know a couple of privately-educated Edinburgh types with a roughly similar accent so I think it's that.