Brown did not concede defeat .But,he did announce that he would step down as leader of the Labour Party by September.

I consider this a strange announcement . Why wouldn't he step down immediately if there was a chance for someone else in his party to form a government ? Would it really take that long for Labour to chose a new leader ? And is it going to take that long to break this electoral logger-jam ?

Brown cannot let go of any semblance of power he has.
Bear in mind he has been angling for the "Top Job" for more than a decade, so he's not about to give up now.

I think brown didn't really have a choice as I don't think clegg would ever form a coalition with brown, but if labour had a new leader, one that was more charismatic for the labour party then the lib dems would be more likely to form a coalition with labour.

However whichever and if the lib dems pick a side then they might as well just join that party as at the next vote, the opposition is just going to claim voting for lib dems is a vote for whatever party they sided with and hence the libs will have lost even more support from the little they had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albear

i think brown didnt really have a choice as i dont think clegg would ever form a coalition with brown, but if labour had a new leader, one that was more charismatic for the labour party then the lib dems would be more likely to form a coalition with labour.

however whichever and if the lib dems pick a side then they might aswell just join that party as at the next vote, the opposition is just going to claim voting for lib dems is a vote for whatever party they sided with and hence the libs will have lost even more support from the little they had.

---

Don't sell a deal up the creek, cooperation and coalition can work very well for a minor party

Maybe, personally I don't see how teaming up could work out well for the lib dems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albear

maybe, personally i dont see how teaming up could work out well for the lib dems.

---

Being in government is better than being out of it and they seem to have done well in cabinet posts and power sharing. Perhaps they had more in common than they knew

Cameron wins!! Yeahh!!

I feel like breaking out in patriotic song...

When Britain first, at heaven's command,
Arose from out the azure main,
Arose, arose, arose from out the a-azure main,
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:

Rule Britania!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must in their turn, to tyrants fall,
Must in ,must in, must in their turn, to tyrants fall,
While thou shalt flourish, shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Brittons never, never, never shall be slaves.


Now we got to work on getting him to channel his inner Thatcher .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Now we gotta work on getting him to channel his inner Thatcher .

---

Are you suggesting Tom he should try to cungure up a long dead leader. We don't need another era of Britannia rules the waves

At least Brown did the decent thing and stood aside.

Now the fun really starts.

At least Brown did the decent thing and stood aside.

Now the fun really starts.

There you have it, a rarity in UK politics, a full coalition government.

BBC News - Cameron's cabinet: A guide to who's who

A quick read is that the Conservatives will handle the foreign policy while more of the Libs are doing the domestic stuff.

Given that the UK budget is going to be severely challenging in the next year or so;where austerity could be the name of the game ,not sure I would trust people who are hard wired to spend spend spend other people's money until it runs out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

not sure I would trust people who are hard wired to spend spend spend other people's money until it runs out.

---

Doesn't that cover pretty much everyone in government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

not sure I would trust people who are hard wired to spend spend spend other people's money until it runs out.

---

Hello tom:

Ahem... You certainly trust 'em to spend and spend, and spend other people's money when it comes to WAR! Then you're not so conservative... You're as liberal as they get.

excon

Once you decide to go to war you have to fund it. I have yet to hear at the initiation of a conflict a debate of the decision being determined on how the war is financed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Once you decide to go to war you have to fund it. I have yet to hear at the initiation of a conflict a debate of the decision being determined on how the war is financed .

---

Hello again, tom:

You're right. I mischaracterized it. I should have said, BORROW, BORROW, and BORROW some more. Make your grandchildren pay for your war. If you HAVEN'T heard a politician mention how we're going to PAY for a war, it's about time you did.

excon

What you mischaracterize is my position on war funding . I think provisions should be made outside the standard bugetary process for it. Taxes targeted specifically for the war;or to pay for the issuing of war bonds come immediately to mind. (with a provision that it is prohibitted to skim the tax money into the general revenue as our pols are inclined to do)

Well this makes very interesting reading and I believe is in the best interests of the country.
BBC News - Full Text: Conservative-Lib Dem deal

I agree that that is a compromise that is probably the best that could be negotiated between two parties with such different world views.