WOW> this is even hugh news here, and much to my surprise this was in our headlines this morning:wtf:
yeah, they cancelled 2 hours of the bbc for it this evening - i wouldn't have minded if it had been actual reporting with actual footage of actual events but the events themselves (brown going into buck house, then leaving, cameron doing the same, both men making short speeches) weren't that long so in reality all we got was various commentators waffling over footage of the outside of buck house - it got so bad that david dimbleby (who i think is great, generally) was reduced to reporting on how red the asphalt on the mall looked, and how lovely the plane trees in st james' park were. i mean, seriously, you cancelled two hours of scheduling to talk about trees?!
Brown said Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had asked to begin formal coalition talks with the Labour Party and said he believed their parties might form a center-left alliance.
i think this is something a lot of people find difficult - the lib dems and labour are, while not exactly the same, relatively well aligned on politics in a centre-leftish position. the conservatives are the opposite of labour for sure and not exactly aligned with the lib dems, so the lib dems doing a deal with the conservatives does come across as a pretty massive shift away from all the principles that the lib dems were pushing for in their campaign.
that said, clegg did say before the election that in this event he'd be morally obliged to try for a deal with whoever had the most seats so i do see where he's coming from. and if the lib dems can provide some counter to the conservatives, it might be ok i guess.
So, do the majority of Brits agree with this development?, and poor Brown he never really had the clout or popular that Blair did, is that true?
well, i agree with it in that i know it happened! do i think it's right and what should've happened? probably not.
as for brown - well no, he never had blair's clout but that's probably because he lacked blair's charisma - like him or not, blair was a very charismatic leader and was able to argue his case very efficiently and engagingly. brown was pretty good on economics but economics aren't really the most exciting aspect of politics and he isn't the most exciting of men, he wasn't affable enough to really engage people, and the only times he really tried to engage in a more personable, friendly way, it came over as so scripted and awkward people just didn't like it.
his other big problem was that he was never elected - not just as PM, frankly in this country we never actually elect the PM, we elect whichever party we want in power, and whoever happens to be leader of that party becomes PM; however, he was never elected as party leader either. normally the party leader is chosen by a pretty rigorous within-party voting system, so when the public vote for a party they can be reasonably sure that whoever is leading it is trusted and mandated by the party as a whole. he never had that, he was just kind of appointed as successor to blair (which for a nominally socialist party is pretty shocking really).
as for the change, well i can't stand david cameron, i'm very much anti- the tory party generally and i'm sad they've taken power. on the other hand, that is what was voted for (reasonably) democratically and so i have to accept it. i just hope we get a good new punk movement as a result
As for the majority of Brits, well the do agree with it cause the majority (not an overall majority but a majority nonetheless with the help of the lib dems) wanted a Conservative government led by David Cameron.
that's not strictly true tho, hence all this stuff about electoral reform - which i'm all for, as it happens. i don't know whether PR is necessarily the best way to go but there are other systems to look at (personally i think STV is probably the best) and the FPTP system is ridiculous in any nation where there're more than 2 parties. winning the most seats doesn't necessarily mean winning the most votes - even winning a single seat doesn't, it just means the single highest percentage - ie if you get 26% of the vote and 2 other parties get 24% each, with anyone else making up the rest, you still win, even though only 26% of voters actually wanted you, which is far from a majority. this is why marginal seats are so hotly fought, because a vote difference of 1-2% really can cause a total change. PR is far from ideal, partly because it doesn't allow anyone outright power (although in some ways that could be a good thing, but it can mean you never get any real authority in government), but there are various other systems too. i studied them all for my first politics degree, but it was so long ago (and quite frankly, so dull) that i've forgotten how all the various systems work. but this is quite a useful guide:
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5
