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.

Can people seriously not tell that lincstash's posting style is different from everyone else's on the thread?

I mean, every message board usually has one of these type of posters - they come on, post massive hysterical rants, throw insults at anyone who contradicts any of their sweeping assertions, and then bugger off again till the next time.

I'm not bothered whether they are UKIP-style barking or Socialist-Worker style barking, the fact is that this is not the way normal people debate, and this is not how discussions on MN usually run. No?

"Aren't they the ones controlled by shape shifting Alien lizards?"

Oh, god, don't Coolfonz...I used to work with a guy who was very big on conspiracy theories (9/11, moon landing, Holocaust denial, the lot) and I said to him one day, 'I suppose you believe in these alien shape-shifting lizards as well, ha ha'

He did.

That's an hour of my life I'll never get back.

ahundredtimes, he was accused of being a twat and a racist and told to clear off the site, so unfortunately he started being abusive as well. It was a pity because there was potential for an interesting discussion. The discussion moved away from the original hung parliament point as threads often do, but it was still interesting about Labour funding and the unions etc. You may in fact be wrong about how the world works, it's worth keeping an open mind. It could be argued that there was a lot of conspiring going on by Bush and Blair to get us into the war. If we can keep the discussion civilised without personal attacks then we can all learn something.

Lincstash was quite clear about his motives earlier on the thread:

"I also notice Mumsnet is heavily biassed to the left, so im here to add some weight on the other side of the see saw.

Im also here to troll the more obvious meat puppets.......... "

I'm not at all surprised that DP is in favour, as she enjoys a spot of trolling herself.

Strange that there don't seem to be any rational Tories on Mumsnet nowadays. I think the Tories are wrong in many respects, but I certainly didn't think they were quite so uniformly crazy as their representatives on here would suggest.

Yes, I can!

I'm quite looking forward to having MN back to normal tbh.

I actually read this thread initially because I thought it would be about what might happen in a hung parliament. Then suddenly we were into the english as a race, and loony leftwing teachers and so on it went until reaching the masons.

Tbh, I'd love it if there was a thread where posters who have joined pre the election for political reasons - I think you too Claig? Though I know you've made an effort to post on other things - could go post their names and why they were here, and what they thought. It'd be a big help.

Claig,

I can believe that SOME of what he was saying could well have been clever and accurate. But there were also elements of the insane, which made it very hard to actually learn anything because it kind if tainted the rest of what he was saying.

It's a shame because I agree it could have had the potential to be interesting and informative - however, it's hard to see how that potential could truly have been fulfilled. In short I think it's unlikely.

Oh tehre are a few rational tory types- theya re the ones who don't accuse you of being complicit in an evil war just because you palce your vote elsewhere. They do exist.

Fllight- 5 bloody eyars of it he had. Now, I will say that newstraid who are in aprt NI funded apid for the only therapy ds1 was ever offered and I am eternally grateful for that, but not for the rest of it. DH's job in fact was decided as vacant because some twat in another office pulled dh's job description, said 'oh yes I do all that' when he didn't, and the boxes ahd already been ticked when they got to DH even though they realised el twatto was lying.

but teh bloke did us a favour tbh. DH sick of porn / ridiculous demands / sheer nastiness

OOH must go find bit about English as a race and tell Welsh ds4 that even though his siblings and parents all English, his Welsh birth cert makes him different

The funny thing is that I think I can remember one of lincstash's first posts on here a couple of weeks ago, and it wasn't massively ranty. As I remember, it was a fairly straightforward "you have to vote Conservative in this election because they're the only hope for real change now that Brown has messed up the country" type post.

Then he got stuck in on a thread about Europe, and it All Started Coming Out - the xenophobia and the racism and now the sexism as well and all the rest of it.

Which is telling.

This "troll" thing is just so childish, it's getting worse..When I first joined MN you only heard it every 2 or 3 months, now you hear it everyday....anyone who is remotely different is a troll..

It's crazy...

I like Linctash because he has an energy about him, he clearly knows his stuff and puts it across very well..

I like Claig for the same reasons, even though we don't always agree..

ahundredtimes, you don't like my political views so you think I joined for political reasons. I may not even vote, I think they are all a shower. I think the last debate was staged and the rules made sure that they would not really discuss issues. I think they may all be hoping for a hung parliament. I think that explains why Cameron has failed to score so many open goals. So I have no agenda. I think whoever wins, the main policies of globalisation, war etc. will continue. It makes no difference. I am interested in politics, I think some of the parties are more harmful to us ordinary folk, but on major issues they are essentially indistinguishable. Whoever wins it will be the usual plus ca change.

Flight - why have you been in sustained contact with News International? And have you been to the pharmacist yet, because I believe there's an anti-fungal cream you can use for that?

so you DO agree with his position re the masons, dp?

No, it's not because I don't like your views Claig.

It's honestly because I was under the impression you were one of many who have joined quite recently for reasons other than being a parent or just wanting to be a part of MN for the sake of it. If that makes sense.

That impression had nothing whatsoever to do with the views you hold.

I don't know much about PR, but I do know that long-term pro-PR activists are very dismayed by the alternative vote (AV) system that's being proposed by Labour (and I think by the LibDems as well). They argue that it still distorts the vote, albeit in a slightly different way to first past the post. It's not a system that's used in many other countries. It's regarded as a good compromise by Labour because it maintains the constituency link, and the idea of constituency MPs is hugely important in the UK context.

I don't know what sort of PR is used in Welsh assembly elections - do you Clar?

I haven't read all his posts aitch....what does he want to do with the masons..?

Line the all up against the wall and shot them..?

The Lib Dems propose Single Transferable Vote (STV) in multi-member seats.

AMR

Not an expert but I rather like the way the Asembly works, and absolutely certain that we get better rep from our AM than MP, both of whom I voted for

(In know DP has enquired after my allegiances before but if she knows where my constituency is she will find they are from different parties LOL)

ahundredtimes,
"It's honestly because I was under the impression you were one of many who have joined quite recently for reasons other than being a parent or just wanting to be a part of MN for the sake of it."

well I am afraid you are wrong about this. You may also be wrong about politics and that is why you should keep an open mind and expose yourself to different viewpoints, in case other people have ideas that may change your mind.

Ah right, thanks vesela. I think that the 'Vote for ideas' site might be wrong on that point then - when I was doing it last night I couldn't see any mention of STV (I came out 75% Green and 25%.... TORY)

(oops AMS I meant)
Quite a good rationale explanation on the link

Claig, bless you That was sweet.

Oh dear sorry, that came out a bit wrong, was on my iphone.

DP, I haven't decided yet who I want, will be watching with interest and deciding by 6th May.

Animula, thank you for that. What I don't think I fully understand is the current system. Every so often I see someone posting on MN that as the system works now we aren't technically voting for a leader of a party but voting for the person we feel will represent best in Parliament. I get that.

Now to me this doesn't seem very sensible and I know that looking at previous elections that the number of seats a party gains doesn't correspond to the number of votes placed. So to me this is an antiquated system and I would like to see some kind of electoral reform, whatever that may be.

I have heard Clegg say they support PR and Brown say there would be referendum but was under the impression watching Cameron that he didn't want any kind of electoral reform, though may have got that wrong.

So if Cameron ie. Conservative party don't want reform, I can only assume they want things to stay the same. So I therefore should be technically be voting for whoever I feel will represent my constituency best in Parliament, which is a Lib Dem candidate, which doesn't help the Conservatives one iota.

I hope that makes sense, I've probably lost a link of logic somewhere, it is just DH and I were trying to explain this all to the DC yesterday and I confused myself (easily done !)

Thanks Clar. There was an interesting interview with Elfyn llwyd in the Grauniad y'day - did you see it? It gave a quick run-down of Plaid policies and I bet I wasn't the only limp-wristed lefty thinking 'why can't I vote for them'