5 days that changed the country

davidk

Personality politics, schpersonality politcs.

It was all about credibility: there was no credible way the LDs could form a government with a patchwork quilt of parties leaving the largest party on the sidelines.

Sometimes things are as prosaic as that.

The LDs had two choices: a coalition or bringing down a vulnerable minority government. There never was a third way.

Norman Dee

Don't want to be first to comment, I want to wait for Richard of York, then anything I say will appear to be intelligent.

Richard of York

It seems the Tories were duped into the AV referendum......how will that go down in the backbenches?

Scott

RoY, giving us the benefit of your complettely un-biased opinion then!!!!! best to ignore I think

Tarka the Rotter

5 days that changed British politics? Hmmm not so sure. Now the outs are in and the ins are out, the Political Class remain in charge and the business of tagging, surveillance, databasing and keeping us all in our place continues apace. No chance to have a say on the EU... no chance to have a say on the Smoking Ban... no chance that the police will actually protect the public as opposed to coshing peaceful passers by down and watching them die...no chance the state will leave us alone...

Paddy

There is no way the Libs would get along with the Labour party.

Labour lied and lied and still couldn't get elected.

They are the nasty party. Quite possibly evil.

lescam

"Gordon Brown had not prepared a policy offer, nor got the backing of his Cabinet, nor developed a relationship with Nick Clegg."

His phone call to Nick Clegg, the man who it was in Brown's own interests to get on side, was described later as "a diatribe and a rant". Brown was utterly incapable of "developing a relationship" with anyone who did not share his opinions. In other words, he was (is) a bigot in the fullest sense, and those who disagreed with him were permanently ignored, and deemed unworthy of attention from "Gordon the Magnificent" (as Chris Mullin describes him). Such a person is his own worst enemy, and how he had the sheer effrontery to call Gillian Duffy bigoted, amazes me.

TrevorsDen

I think this is overstated. And Cable a friend of brown? The inventor of the Mr Bean jibe?
I am not a fan of Cable but I think there is too much effort to paint him as opposed to the coalition its all a bit thin. The longer it goes the more he will like power.

Lets not forget that even with the LDs labour would not have a majority -- oops, looks like everybody alreqdy have.

Some coalitions take 5 months and longer to put together. Labour only had interest in throwing insults at the LDs throughout 13 years of their government.
Yet perversely Brown made ham-fisted efforts to be nice to Clegg in the first leaders debate. Alright 'robotic' efforts...

I suppose I ought to wait for Norman to comment but I must ask RoY just what he means by being 'duped' into AV referendum.
The referendum offer was voted on by backbenchers and was clearly the minimum the LDs would want.
And I would imagine the more tory backbenchers think about it (and I would be the fist to agree that thinking is not the best facet of some tory backbenchers) then the better the idea looks.
LDs and Tories can campaign on giving second preferences to the other at the next election; no wonder Labour are terrified and desperate to back track on their support for AV.

Dimoto

It seems there is an ongoing agenda out there to make the coalition look fragile, and a temporary interruption to Labour hegemony.
The compromised Nick Robinson should have resigned the day after Labour lost power. He has nothing to contribute.
Cameron's preference of dealing with the BBC by a slow financial squeeze just guarantees more anti-coalition news manipulation.
It is worrying that the deep buried tentacles of Labour corruption and control reach unchallenged into so many areas of national life.

yank

Well, from afar, I'd say no, it hasn't "changed the country". This coalition appears to be transitional in nature, like our own current government. It's just a means to an eventual status... not an end or a "change". I'd say that similar to here, most people voted against something, rather than for something.

Heck, the coalition's financial plans seem to be acknowledged as photocopies of what Labor would have done, certainly in overall numbers if not in specific. So there's nothing here to support your contention (unless you put stock in the Big Society business). The green eye shade guys are just doing the work they'd be doing regardless.

Future elections will be the real change. I doubt Mr. Cameron will be a part of that, from the looks of things. Big mistake, again judging from afar, for him to frolic off into foreign affairs, straight away, while the fires are burning at home. Clearly, political in nature, and him establishing his brand. Yes, war and peace are important, but splashy photo ops aren't necessary in its prosecution and attainment.

We'll see whether the Brit populace prefers an engaged governance over the brand. Since you're like us and we're like you, I'd expect the branding efforts will eventually fall out of favor, as here, where the current brand seems to be in a spot of trouble.

Dimoto

Yank - or you could say, it's a return to normal CEO behaviour after the weirdness of control freak, micro-manager Brown.

There is a competent team looking after the economy, it is worthwhile for Cameron to mend some international fences after the damage done by Brown/Miliband D. (don't believe everything Hillary Clinton tells you).

yank

Dimoto,

You seem to be agreeing with my premise, that folks were voting against Brown and Labor, and the election results don't seem to support a rush to anybody else.

I do hope you've got a competent team running matters, but remember, the bottom line is the budget, and a clear differentiation doesn't jump out, not to my (admittedly Brit naive) eyes.

When our current president got in, he frolicked off into the international limelight as well, and went on what we here affectionately call the "Obama World Apology Tour 2009".

That was the first trigger for his downward spiral, just months in, and it's been downhill ever since.

It provided absolutely nothing abroad (as if the sharks actually care what sweet words come out of some politician's mouth... yeah, right), and it hurt him at home. It was a lose-lose situation. Dave's making that same mistake, even as we speak, it appears. When I watch him, I make out the tinny " arf " of the lapdog... and that's deadly at home, as always.

nonny mouse

Why is Nick Robinson still at the BBC now that his idol Gordon Brown has gone?

He did everything to talk down Cameron and Clegg and talk up Gordon Brown as the strong leader and the only reason why a Labour/LibDem coalition was possible.

One thing we did learn though. Ed Balls is the reason why Labour are not in government now. Any Labour supporters planning to vote for him now?

Dorothy Wilson

nonny mouse: Those comments go for the BBC in general. The default position there seems to be to present every story either as a criticism of the government or a suggestion that it is about to break up. The World at One had a go at Michael Gove and then followed that with a totally biased - and rather silly - presentation of the plan to cut immigration numbers. And that was within just one half hour.