Heres what a hung Parliament will do

[lincstash]

WE have been there before, with both Wilson and Heath.

No one can rule with a minority government. Its an abortion. Nothing radical, nothing decisive can get passed into law. Nothing gets decided, no real advancement can be made, everything is fudge and a compromise.

IF we get a hung parliament, Labour will retain power (as the incumbent governments right to), completely unable to do anything decisive about the economy, and eventually, after being defeated in multiple votes government will collapse with a year, and another election will ensue. You only need a major bill such as the Finance Bill to get destroyed by the opposition, and thats thats.

Meanwhile, the militant left wing unions (UNITE and GMB) will set about ejecting Labours Blairites and Brownites from the party , (as they have promised they can and will), and whilst labour struggles along in the minority in westminster, civil war will rip the party apart as the unions seize control and force the party back to socialist far left. Policy making and decision making will cease within the government

Meanwhile, the worlds financial markets will see the political chaos, pull the plug on our credit rating and that will be it, game set an match. The economy will collapse, and the World Bank will be forced to step in, as it did with the Wilson Government. We will then be a prime target for the EU vultures to take further control of us.

THis is not speculation, this is based on previous times in our history when we have been in this position. We are the 5th largest economy because we always have had majority governments. If you want examples of what happens to countries with minority rules, look at places like Italy, Argentina, Brazil. 3rd rate counties because they cant be ruled decisively.

Thank you Claig, your sensible discussion is appreciated.

I think UNITE isnt overplaying its hand at all, but we will have to see in time.

Your last paragraph I basically agree with. Between 1960 and 1990 we switched between a cash based industrial manufacturing country to a credit based services industry.

The problem was the third world could do industries with a high labour requirement far easier and cheaper than we could. This came to a head with the Miners strike - it was cheaper to import coal from Poland than dig it here.

Ever since then we have struggled to find our niche , really and ended up doing high technology on borrowed money.

I think there are several agendas. I know for a fact there is a long term plan to form the United States of Europe, and its in the the pursuit of that plan to weaken and destroy national identities. Everything the EU does has one eye on that target. Immigration policy, for example and Human Rights - mix all the peoples of europe together, dilute national cultures with lots of ethnicities, then give foreigners more rights that citizens in any country. Its clear that is the underlying plan as far as that goes. Thats the whole reason for the Lisbon Treaty, EU Ministers, the Single Currency.

I also think there is a a second agenda, of One World Government, of which the EU may or may not be a sub plan. I think the there are masonic driving forces behind it, including the secret 33rd Degree Masons, of which every single world leader now and since 1960, is a member. If you believe in the United States of Europe, the United World Government is even tastier.

Claig. Do you too think there is a conspiracy driven by the masons?

Lincstash - I have you to thank for actually doing some reading regarding the possibility of a hung parliment. Some sites support your views but some tbh do not support them and the view is that a hung parliament might not be the disaster being predicted.

Why are you so sure that YOU are right?

Not all the reading I have done supports your view that "the world's financial market will pull the plug on us"

I think there is room for improvement in Lincstashs's spelling, but that doesn't really matter, because he does have an understanding of politics. We can disagree with him, but there is no doubt that he is better informed than many. I think Lincstash comes across as a bit strident because he is trying to emphasise the need to continue to teach the history of the country and to maintain a British identity. I can understand this, because globalisation would like to do the opposite. Globalisation is for the benefit of big business and the ruling elite and doesn't care about people, their culture, traditions or history.

To get back to Labour funding. A few years ago, David Sainsbury, was single-handedly responsible for a very large part of Labour's funding. I don't know what his current role is. But if Labour manage to get back in, then there will be a queue of businessmen waiting to hand over money to the Labour party. Labour will then kowtow to business as per usual, and the union members will be shafted as they have been during Labour's period in office.

I disagree with you on 'identity', sorry, but I do. Do you agree with him on the masons though?

For me to be persuaded by your powerful defence of his well-informed political opinions Claig I'm interested to know whether you too believe the masons a driving a plot towards a One World Government, and accompanying sub-plots such as the E.U.

That's why I ask.

Yes but it may not make any odds, because UNITE has specifically 167 MP's in its palm. Business can start propping up labour, but UNITE can still tell its 167 paid lackeys to vote in a certain way, with some not inconsiderable clout. And there are already dissenter against labour, remember the leadership challenges Browns fought off?

As you can see, it will certainly be an epic battle, not least of which because the winner takes all, including control of the country (if labour are holding government).

And my money is on a Union victory.

ahundredtimes, I think that big business, multi-national corporations, capitalists and billionaires have an agenda to drive through a policy of globalisation. I don't think they give two hoots about the employment prospects and standard of living of us oiks.

That's a 'yes' then Claig. I take that to be a carefully worded way of saying 'yes' without actually needing to mention masons?

But still managing to conjure up a 'us' and 'them' division and unknown, shadowy evils so beloved of all conspiracy theories.

Right. Well. It's been fascinating. I'll you leave you two to it then.

lincstash, may I invite you to look at the record of New Labour and compare it to the wishes of the unions? You will find significant distance. Tbh, if I were a union baron, I'd be wondering whether the political levy was worth it. As indeed some unions have.

The idea that the present government has been following orders from the unions is laughable.

Not so clear when it comes to Tory donors, of course... because their funding is less open and transparent and less moral. (Labour's being based on a means of funding political representation of people who are not rich enough to have any influence as individuals) And both parties stick big donors in the Lords, which is morally dubious.

I didn't say anything about masons. I don't think that some plonker with a trouser leg rolled up is more powerful than a billionaire. Money is power, not some lodge member. Of course there is an us and them division. The interests of the super rich are not the same as our interests. That is what the whole Labour party is based on, except that I think that Labour are also in the pocket of the super rich. That's why Mandelson has liaisons with Deripaska on a yacht off of Corfu. Money talks and Labour listens.

oooh there has been a rash of deletions.

solo - you don't want lab or tory - how do you feel about libdems?

I know nothing about libdems pw, but they may be the way to go for me. I suspect they'll win actually.

So, lincstash... you're going to go away after the election, right?

solo - you could try the vote for policies site

No I'm not bitter Linktash. My family go back a long way. Look up the name "Winter" if you want to see how far (Nov 5th being an important family date).

My history is of great interest to me. My 3 great uncles were officers in the RAF. My Grandfather and Great Grandfather were Captains in the Merchant Navy and my Grandmother was Bomber Haris' Driver (very angry man apparently). But I doubt that is of any interest to anyone outside my family.

Really impressed you can trace yours back through the Dark ages though.

As for Man hating? No, not at all. I merely wondered what succor you were after on Mums net?

Heathen - I think it's fair to assume, or at least I very much HOPE he will be gone then.

Given the utterly shocking language he used about secondcoming's children, I think it's fair to assume that parenting isn't really his um, interest.

Solo - did you watch the tv debate? Will you watch the one on Thursday?

Thanks pw,will check that out later.
100x, no I didn't see it, but will attempt the next one.

@edam.

Yes, but the unions have stated quite categorically they intend to eject New Labour and return the party to socialism. I provided direct quotes from UNITE and the GMB. It isnt hypothetical, this civil war will occur. The worry is if labour are in government when it hits the fan.

Yeah, right... a. can't see any chance of that happening (sadly, politics is rather tedious now there's no major ideological divide) and b. just searched this thread for 'unite' and can't see any quotes.

If Unite genuinely wanted a return to socialism, they'd be funding one of the minority parties that stood in the European elections, not Labour.

"I think the there are masonic driving forces behind it, including the secret 33rd Degree Masons, of which every single world leader now and since 1960, is a member."

I knew there was something about Idi Amin's turn-ups.

To be fair, lincs, what you provided were quotes from a motion that has yet to be put to conference (if I'm understanding you correctly). It's not in any way official Unite policy.

"No I'm not bitter Linktash.

My history is of great interest to me. My 3 great uncles were officers in the RAF. My Grandfather and Great Grandfather were Captains in the Merchant Navy and my Grandmother was Bomber Haris' Driver (very angry man apparently). But I doubt that is of any interest to anyone outside my family.

Really impressed you can trace yours back through the Dark ages though."

1. Well if you want a big willy contest when it comes to WW2...

MY g'father was a Chief Petty Officer in 1916 at the Battle of Jutland, and rejoined in WW2, and was mentioned in Dispatches at the sinking of the Hood at the Battle of Denmark Strait in 1941

My grandmother was in Queen Alexandra?s Imperial Military Nursing Service and served on HS Gloucester Castle

My father was a navigator on Lancasters, then did a second tour in Burma, at one point dropping supplies to the Chindits. He was also a member of the Goldfish Club, having ditched in the Bay of Bengal and had to avoid Japanese for a week.

One uncle flew Mozzys in a photo reccy squadron.

Another uncle was at Anzio in 1944 and then at Monte Cassino, having been attached to an american unit as British liason

A third uncle was shot down over france, captured and kept in Stalag Luft III, managing to slip away when they moved the prisoners to Stalag XIII-D as the russians approached from the east.

My mother was WRAF

Her 3 sisters were Wrens or Land Army.

1. You can trace back much further if you have noble/royal/landed connections. Being able to connect to one of the Nobles who landed with William means you are following a line over well trodden french nobility geneology. Not hard. You will only struggle if your related to peasants with no land, no money and no title, you'll prolly grind to a halt about 1500 AD. We can connect as well to John Balliol, Henry IV and Sir Robert Silkstone ( who died of the Black Death 1347). But then ive been at it nearly 40 years on and off.

and this is why i would prefer not to have men on mumsnet.

"By AitchTwoZone Mon 19-Apr-10 23:08:33
and this is why i would prefer not to have men on mumsnet"

Is that because you're sexist or left wing totalitarian ?