Gordon Brown immediate resignation. Torrys take number 10.

The Lib Dems will be given up to five cabinet posts by David Cameron as he delivers on his pledge last night to have a full and proper coalition government with the Lib Dems. In an echo of the German grand coalition, Nick Clegg is expected to be appointed deputy prime minister. Vince Cable, the party's deputy leader, is being lined up to serve as George Osborne's deputy as chief secretary to the Treasury.

It is understood that the Lib Dems, who have 11 MPs in Scotland, will be given the Scottish secretary portfolio. The other Lib Dems in line for Cabinet posts are: Chris Huhne, who ran Nick Clegg a close second in the leadership contest, David Laws, the education spokesman, and Danny Alexander, Clegg's chief of staff.

It is also understood that the Lib Dems have been given an undertaking that they will have 'sleepers' at middle and junior ministerial rank in most other departments. Members of the Lib Dem frontbench being lined up for these jobs include Ed Davey, the foreign affairs spokesman, and Norman Lamb, the health spokesman.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Osborne and Cable together at the Treasury!? I wonder how that will work. Osborne really really worries me, hopefully Cable can keep him in check with where the imminent cuts are targeted.

But remember too big and to quick a cut in spending will actually lead to a greater deficit, just look at Ireland.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

reply to post by neformore


I see what you are saying but! imagine the big business deals Cameron must have made to get the PM gig. Either way you cut it the man owes a debt to people like Murdoch and Rothschild etc. Those people will want things in return that wont be in the public interest.

Remember the sleaze from the last tory govt? We will see that in spades from now on, only this time who will report it? Newscorp and the captains of industry working together with a compliant govt will only spell trouble for the ordinary man in the street IMO..........

You can see when he smiles there is something that isnt quite right. You know there is something else entirely going on. Dirty, horrible tory scum. This is not what the majority voted for.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Whilst not a majority I consider

Cons 306
Lab 258
Lib 57

I sign that more people voted for the tories than lab - indeed a +97% Change
in any view that's a majority vote - albeit not a parliamentary one une the current system.

Originally posted by strangleholder1
Remember the sleaze from the last tory govt? We will see that in spades from now on, only this time who will report it?

I remember the sleaze from Mandleson, and other Labour politicans.

I also remember the recent expenses scandal.

I don't understand why people keep harking back to the last tory government. It was 13 years ago and, frankly, Labour have been just as bad - if not worse in some areas.

The world - and this country - is massively, massively different than it was 13 years ago.

Believe me, I was no fan of Thatcher or Major - but dragging up something from 13 years back is pointless. It does nothing but perpetuate self-defeating notions.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Well put my friend, cracking final comment on Clegg. Pasionate and well put Con-dem-nation from a young voter is always going to be worth more than whatever gibberish the "Sun" newspaper farts out!

Clegg has ruined his party for a generation because of this!

reply to post by Silk


Number of seats won does not represent number of votes cast.

reply to post by strangleholder1


Yeah, there will be deals.

Another thing im thinking about, will there be another Televised debate for the next election due to the impact it had on the Tory numbers..?

reply to post by neformore


Have to agree with you 100% - remember Major was the party for the family then castigated over the sleeze of affairs -

anyone want to bring up John Prescott's record - no its buried or any of the others chosen to be forgotten just at the mo in a fit of hubris over the glorious 13 years of new Labour.

*cough "Weapons of mass destruction" anyone?

Originally posted by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire
reply to post by strangleholder1

 

Yeah, there will be deals.

Another thing im thinking about, will there be another Televised debate for the next election due to the impact it had on the Tory numbers..?

Not unless cameron gets a good facelift.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I did qualify "under the current system" - you have to work with what you have and until changed that is the state of play.

reply to post by neformore


BUT! this new tory govt's political idealology is a return to old conservative values. They have never tried to hide that, we had new labour now we are getting old tories..............

reply to post by Silk


Fair enough, but i'm sure as a tory sympathiser you can understand the revolt people must be feeling right now?

Originally posted by Silk
*cough "Weapons of mass destruction" anyone?

EXACTLY.

How anyone can complain about sleaze when Blair blatantly span this country into a folly of a war in Iraq is absolutely beyond me.


There is an important creed I tend to live my life by, and its something I learned from a grafitti artist who had a very profound moment, because what they sprayed on the wall was this

"whoever you vote for, government wins"

'nuff said really

reply to post by andy1033


I agree with your sentiments, but unfortunately I doubt we've seen the last of Brown & Mandelson, as they'll now probably get top jobs in the EU and screw the Tories and the rest of us from there.

Originally posted by Silk
reply to post by neformore

 

*cough "Weapons of mass destruction" anyone?

You might be interested to know that Dave Cameron voted for the war and spoke passionatly about defending Britain from attack from WMDs. He supported labour fully right the way through the war.......

reply to post by strangleholder1


As he was quite right to - In time of war it is customary for the opposition to shelve objections in public and parliament - as Neil Kinnock did during the Falklands when we were led by Maggie.

However - he was being lied to as much as the British public on the WMD claim - his brief would have been by those encouraged by Blair to big up the WMD claim - he would have been party to no other information. Blair ordered the spin and stuck to it.

I have heard nothing from DC to suggest the opposite in recent years.

Will it really make any difference who won? Aren't they all just puppets now? I'm not being sarcastic.

I really feel that all 3 of the main parties have good and bad points but the whole political/banking system is just so corrupt and tied up together that I really don't see much difference between what any of them can actually do.

They may fully intend to do the 'right thing' but when it comes down to it, can they, or is someone else really pulling the strings?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Because you are young un I can understand where you are coming from, I was the same 20 years ago, thought my vote and the party I would vote for would mean something and be the best for me.

20 years on I have learned on thing, all the parties are just like a pair of shoes, you put them shoes on the wrong feet they feel somewhat different, but at the end of the day they are still the same pair of shoes.

All the parties spout the same old rubbish just in different ways, whoever runs the country are in it for one thing.........themselves, and they know they can get away with it for at least four years or more because the UK Joe Public is so comatosed we will do nothing about it except complain about the weather everyday as usual.

Pay your taxes, watch as your money covers less and less and be grateful that you pay for all the MP's to have second homes, expenses covered and earn a damm sight more than you and me, lol just who are the servants of the population again!!!!

Wolfie

reply to post by neformore


A bit of Anarchist sloganeering there Nef, well I never.

Never a truer word spoken though, or written as in this case.