Comments:UK elections: Gordon Brown offers resignation to secure Labour-Liberal coalition

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
For the dumbass American in the audience118:34, 11 May 2010
Is this what the UK voted for?115:00, 11 May 2010
Why did he do it?614:47, 11 May 2010

For the dumbass American in the audience

Yeah, sorry, I really don't know at all how the U.K. system works. Hung parliament? Party coalition? Could someone give the quick version for the American in the audience?

18:32, 11 May 2010

Follow the hyperlinks, it links to our more famous sister project Wikipedia, which go into things in a lot deeper manner then we can.

18:34, 11 May 2010
 

Is this what the UK voted for?

Somehow I don't think people are going to like keeping Labour in power like this. Especially when the inevitable blowup occurs and they end up with a no-confidence vote forcing them back to the polls.

12:58, 11 May 2010

People are fed up with Labour, and for good reason, but most of us (64 percent precisely) would prefer to keep out the Tories out just as well. We haven't (yet) forgotten the misery of Thatcher. The problem is the draconian electoral system in this country, which leaves 35 percent of the populace disenfranchised.

14:57, 11 May 2010
 

Why did he do it?

Brown had to make a big gesture to have an influence on the LibDem-Tory talks: as his numerical position in Parliament is much weaker than Cameron's.

This could have two likely effects: to encourage Cameron to make more concessions to the LibDems, or even more dramatically, allow a Lab-LibDem-Rainbow coalition of nationalist and centre-left parties.

Either would be a good outcome for Brown's legacy and his "sense of fairness". My guess is that there will be a more progressive LibDem-Tory pact: with some certainty of electoral reform and preservation of the safety net for lower and middle income people.

17:57, 10 May 2010

This is most unexpected! Clegg should seize this opportunity, a Lib-Lab-SNP-Plaid coalition would be far more productive in the long term than the awkward maneuvering and compromises that a Lib-Tory pact would engender. this might even allow the progressive wing of Labour to take back the reigns of power from the Blairites who have been suffocating and destroying the party for so long. This is also (if genunine) a surprisingly noble gesture on the part of Brown. Maybe he has a chance to salvage his legacy after all.

19:44, 10 May 2010
 

So, I am still unclear about the ramifications of Brown clever "step-down acquiescence??" To what ends does Brown find himself motivated, the legacy of his historical image OR some smart political outcome? Can you speculate for me?

00:06, 11 May 2010

I imagine it might be for all of those reasons. In any case it's a positive development for everyone, regardless of their political orientations.

01:10, 11 May 2010
 

There is a dynamic ripple effect in the domestic politics, in the collapse of house of lords commonlaw beyond being an economic landlords club that has chosen just that as the basis for it's political indigestion of how to join the european union of economic western assassins without it's most amiable tie through the already established Labour/Socialist International. The scottish land class has taken the left leaning whig position as to the commons control of torries due to their limited peer persuastion in the house of lords( As economic swingers they fall outside of the loop for GNP to an alien position for allied archaic nationalism within set international boundries)(A limp handshake to a formal bow) a balance of papers worth piss besause they're not written in blood(royal) and labours extended channeling of energy and resources into the european common market where all pseudo nationalism of either the Liberals or the Scotch National Party has more say in a new european parliment where they can more directly bring their products to market while hurdling the pound's exchange for the solidity of it's return. Leaving the economy fenced in along already established markets of trade allow these interests to expand their soveriegn position ahead of the dissolution of their current nationalism which in a conservative role sits more like texas hold'em in a room full of war hawks. The scotts and the irish are enough together to give the necessary edge against tories infrastructural gutting of the past decade of progress even if they did miss their opportunity to bring justice to the divine right of kings by skipping the elected peers position for one of Constabulary and Magistrates that would have secured a stronger system of checks and balances based upon feasability of the laws execution and ideological merit by those who have to see fit in the guilt or innocennce of a nation by the the soundnss of their common law. To resurect this problem with answer in hand the queen need only demand greater responsibility of the lords of the manor by drawing the candalabras focus of light upon those who sit at the breaking edge of representative responsibility for sherrifs and appealate court justices, with a refresher course in fuedal law and the right of appeal. The respect of protection for the feifdom in the exchequer(cabinetry), sherrif(Military), magistrate(University), commons(Labour), & Queen (Divine Right). No this is not spelled or punctuated propperly it's spirited communication for contemporary problems within the common wealth.

01:50, 11 May 2010

Oh bollocks, it looks like some of the Blairites in Labour just won't have any of it, Looks like we'll be stuck with the Tories for a while. Bloody morons. Thanks a bunch, David Blunkett. Next time why don't you stay on the back bench.

14:47, 11 May 2010