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

true, it's a bit hysterical but more of less correct

mozart on radio 3 is about the least elitist thing in the world, amazing music at next to no cost and available to virtually everyone

*or less*

That Quietus link is giving me an error message that I've never seen before - is it working fine for the rest of you?

nah it's fucked for me too but lol Quietus

So I see Chaz Kennedy sobered up long enough to realise he was in a party of cunts

xp "Rails development that just works" lol
It's a problem with their webserver, everyone will see the same error message regardless of OS/browser.

always kinda liked charles kennedy and seem to remember being disappointed that being a drunk was a greater disqualification to high office than being a complete fucking cunt

as with so many other areas of life, wobbly dreamers lose out to dead-eyed technicians

They've left their bonnie Hieland hills,
Their wives and bairnies dear,
To draw the sword for Scotland's lord,
The young Chevalier.

Oh, Charlie is my darling,
My darling, my darling;
Oh, Charlie is my darling,
The young Chevalier.

as with so many other areas of life, wobbly dreamers lose out to dead-eyed technicians

and in the case of deco and lampard, dreamy technicians lose out to dead-eyed wobblers

http://www.peterjoneschina.com/images/products/004571%20L.jpg

This product can be giftwrapped at a cost of £3.00 per item

tbf they do do a GB mug with the slogan "I will try my utmost"

Please to recaption with "that's another fine mess you've gotten me into!" - bowler hats optional.

as with so many other areas of life, wobbly dreamers lose out to dead-eyed technicians

and in the case of deco and lampard, dreamy technicians lose out to dead-eyed wobblers

― nakhchivan, 16 May 2010 11:15 (Yesterday) Bookmark

existence of a football board would be justified by a specialised excelsior thread for just such as above tbh

So, what's this about Nick and Dave making 100+ new lords to enable this 56% 'reform' to pass through?

The party in power tends to adjust the balance of the Lords in their own favour and this has happened since life Peers were created I think. Why Captain Reform-a-Democracy thinks this is a good and positive move now tho, well, I really shd stop being cynical and mean about the principled and necessary plans to rig Parliament.

Coalition creates 100 peers with Lords deal

Potential Conservative peers include the former leader Michael Howard, Michael Spencer, the party Treasurer, and Andrew Feldman, appointed party co-chairman last week. Angela Knight, the former Tory MP and head of the British Bankers’ Association, is under consideration. Simon Wolfson, the Next chief executive, and Sir Anthony Bamford, the chairman of JCB, are also thought likely to be elevated.

oh goody.

This..
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/parliament/defeats09-10.htm
...must never happen again!

This news gonna piss off Kirsty Ward then?

Jesus Christ. Can I just say, good luck, LOLBritain with your hilarious legislature?

The New Politics. World War I is just round the corner.

As it stands the coalition has more peers than the opposition anyway, don't know what they're so worried about. Are those crossbenchers really that independently minded?

"currently dominated by Labour"

labour has 211. the tories have 188. the libs have 72.

this is complete fucking bullshit. obviously the lords is the lords and there's a debate to be had about that. but this is in service of a massive rigging exercise. more and more echoes of 1910.

Are those crossbenchers really that independently minded?

Too much so for the Neu Politik

existence of a football board would be justified by a specialised excelsior thread for just such as above tbh

― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac)

I started a nakhchivan-specific one last night

If I'm being honest the concept of a "Labour Lord" has always been a little o_O to me

If I'm being honest the concept of a "Labour Lord" has always been a little o_O to me

If nothing else, the fallout from this election is making read up on aspects of our parliament that I knew nothing about. For example, the Salisbury Convention.

I like how whenever there's a big election in Britain people get all frisky with the Constitution. It's heady, this access to power.

ha!..

Since the Labour general election victory in 2005 the Liberal Democrats have indicated that they do not feel bound by the Salisbury Convention as a result of decreasing voter turnout, the low share of the vote received by the Government and the changes to the composition of the House of Lords introduced in 1999 by the Labour Government

.. and now, they do.

Principles, errrr, schminciples

Four (c)leg(g)s good, two (c)leg(g)s better.

http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100517&t=2&i=108567295&w=600&r=2010-05-17T123437Z_01_BTRE64G0WW000_RTROPTP_0_BRITAIN-OSBORNE
I can never tell if Osbourne is sneering or not. I presume 'is'.

It's more like "total contempt for anyone who isn't him".

... compensating for deep-seated contempt for himself

(inner voice) "If I hate everone else more than I hate myself, everything will be alright..."

Fixed term 55% rule a serious mistake, says David Davis

Still got his eyes on the prize, I see.

I'm sure there's a simple answer for this, but: what is the point of a no-confidence vote if it doesn't also lead to dissolution and election?

govt gets shook

Tracer Hand - to bring down the government. They don't speak for us.

I'm sure there's a simple answer for this, but: what is the point of a no-confidence vote if it doesn't also lead to dissolution and election?

― The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Monday, May 17, 2010 3:28 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is the most sinister thing!

the libs say that it leads to a new government being horribly formed

but in the UK parliament, how the eff is that going to play out?

bringing down the government midway through fixed term parliament leads to what exactly?

It might end up in a MAJORITY GOVT!!

and then the Libs won't get THEIR SAY!!!

It might end up in a MAJORITY GOVT!!

no, it can't because -- as you may have gleaned -- there's no single party with a majority

informal voting blocs? crazy bargains you-scratch-my-back-i'll-scratch-your 'yes minister' style?

s0 preferable to, y'know, fresh elections

tories voting with labour on giving all children into the care of abusive addicts in return for labour support of funnelling all science funding into an immortality experiment for the queen

It's conceivable another government could be formed out of this Parliament, as in 1924.

But more likely after a couple of weeks of horse-trading that you would get sufficient pressure from media and electorate to force a vote on dissolution through with the support of all parties.

so why bother with this nonsense in the first place? and why 55%?

where is the pressure coming from?

(i don't think it's that "conceivable" bee tee dubs)