Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
David Cameron to Be UK's New Prime Minister
Conservative leader David Cameron is at Buckingham Palace to accept an invitation from the Queen to form a new government.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth II greets David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, at Buckingham Palace, London, in an audience to invite him to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, following last week's General Election, Tuesday May 11, 2010. (AP Photo/John Stillwell, Pool) He is poised to become Britain's new prime minister after Gordon Brown resigned.
Mr Cameron's Conservative Party won the most seats in the UK general election last week, but not an overall majority.
They have been in days of negotiations with the Lib Dems - who were also negotiating with Labour.
But the Lib Dems said those talks failed because "the Labour Party never took seriously the prospects of forming a progressive, reforming government".
Labour leader Mr Brown stepped down as PM with immediate effect.
It is not yet known if the Tories and Lib Dems have reached a formal agreement on forming a coalition government, or whether the Lib Dems will agree to support the Conservatives in a minority government.
But Mr Brown has tendered his resignation, after Labour talks with the Lib Dems failed to secure a deal that would have kept his party in power and said he wished the next prime minister well.
In an emotional resignation statement outside Number Ten, Mr Brown thanked his staff, his wife Sarah and their children, who joined the couple as they left for Buckingham Palace.
Mr Brown said it had been "a privilege to serve" adding: "I loved the job not for its prestige, its titles and its ceremony - which I do not love at all. No, I loved the job for its potential to make this country I love fairer, more tolerant, more green, more democratic, more prosperous and more just - truly a greater Britain."
He also paid tribute to the courage of the armed forces, adding: "I will never forget all those who have died in honour and whose families today live in grief."
The Lib Dem and Conservative teams met for hours of negotiations at the Cabinet Office on Tuesday - four days after the UK general election resulted in a hung parliament.
The talks resumed after Lib Dem negotiators met a Labour team, which followed Mr Brown's announcement on Monday that he would step down as Labour leader by September.
But there were signs throughout the afternoon that the two parties - who together would still not command an overall majority in the House of Commons - would not reach a deal.
Several senior Labour figures, including John Reid and David Blunkett, warned against a coalition with the Lib Dems, particularly if the price involved offering them a referendum on changing the voting system to proportional representation.
After Mr Brown announced he would be stepping down and would see if Labour could do a deal with the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives upped their offer to a promise of a referendum on changing the voting system from existing first past the post system to AV.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllCameron didn't win this election.
Brown lost it.
Tony Bliar lost it.
Do not be surprised to see both the Tories & Labor bring in American political consultants to muddy the electoral waters when the promised referendum to do away with "first-past-the-post" comes to pass. Both of them have too much at stake and want the current British duopoly to remain as is. Expect the same firms that came up with Swiftboating & Demon Sheep to be plying their grubby trade in the U.K. quite soon.
Amazing to think the Tories are now further left than "Labour".
My Mum voted Labour (or Democrat) all her life. I think I'm glad that she didn't live to see "New Labour". What a parcel of rogues in a nation.
>Amazing to think the Tories are now further left than "Labour"
That's a comforting thought, but completely misplaced. The Conservatives have condemned the NHS health service, and consulted a group that advocates private health insurance, private health care providers, and calls the current system an antiquated "soviet-style" institution that must go. The Tories are also limiting unemployment benefit to 24 months FOR A PERSON'S ENTIRE LIFE, and putting those on incapacity benefit under the same system as everyone else - are we going to see people in wheelchairs selling "The Big Issue" - and a further rise in the suicide rate - I wonder? When the Conservatives were last in power, unemployment soared (unemployment levels prior to 1980 were below 5%, but tripled under Thatcher and stayed permanently high) and there were homeless children - and, at least one reported case of two men fighting over who would have a 15-year-old boy they had plied with alcohol.
Britain is getting the "Third-World-style" model.
Conservatives, by the way, got around 20% of the eligible votes (i.e. taking into account those who didn't vote).
And when you hear those in government talking about a lack of money, or that the deficit is too high, take it with a large pinch of salt. The Tories, in the 1990s, said there was "no new money" for the railways, and so they had to be privatized. After privatization, however, the subsidies to the railways MORE THAN TRIPLED! - only now the money went to private firms that rewarded their CEOs with obscene sums, even while jobs were lost and ticket prices rose. The subsidies to these firms has remained at the same high level all through the "Labour" government.
A guy on TV - I forget who - said that there will have to be an austerity program(me) so that the government has the money (around £1 trillion) to stave off another (potential) economic collapse i.e. when the financial sector implodes again. In other words, the public must have their money taken off them, and suffer - and be fed a pack of lies! - in order that the financial system can continue being dysfunctional.
I think around 30%, or more, of the economy is now dependent on finance. So, the UK's entire national output is now resting on unstable ground, in an area prone to landslides. The politicians have created a disaster in waiting - you simply can't gamble your way to long-term prosperity.
No they aren't.
Cameron has tried (or pretended to try) to drag them somewhat leftwards. If you accept all that he says at face value, he and some of his circle are more left than most of the Tories, and are probably in the wrong party. Most of the party itself is still very much the unreconstructed Nasty Party. Even some of the Tory modernisers acknowledge this.
You only have to look at this election, in the weeks leading up to it, to see this. The Tories have had a huge lead for months. In recent weeks, their lead narrowed dramatically. And the unreconstructed Tories were already sharpening their knives for Cameron's back, publicly. Even before the voting started. Look at the aftermath. Lots of unreconstructed Tories sharpening their knives, blaming Cameron's idea of Big Society for the Tories not winning a majority. Lots of unreconstructed Tories clamouring for return to traditional Tory politics.
And if you look closely at what Cameron's says there are problems. It is all very well to talk about Big Society, as opposed to Big Government, but for actual Big Society to work, Cameron is going to have to deal with overlarge corporations who have absolutely no interest in their local communities, and will move at the drop of a coin to any other country in search of lower labour costs. For his Big Society idea to work he needs businesses that are part of the local British economy. And talk isn't anywhere enough. His Big Society can work, but not with standard Tory economic policies.
Furthermore, the evangelical religious right, imported from the US, is fast gaining influence in the Tories.
Even if one is inclined to think positively of Cameron, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, the Tories are not to the left of Labour.
Of the 3 parties, it is the Lib-Dems who are probably the most left of the lot.
>Even if one is inclined to think positively of Cameron, and I am willing to give
>him the benefit of the doubt,
Why are you willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? Tell me what Cameron has done in the past for ordinary people in the UK that makes you believe he deserves your trust?
Why not?
Not to mention, Labour has been a complete disaster.
>It is all very well to talk about Big Society, as opposed to Big Government...
No mention from Cameron about curtailing the influence of BIG business. Fooling the British is as easy as taking candy from a baby.
You really think you can have a functional society when it is those in government that tell us how to live and relate to each other?
"Big Society" as opposed to "Big Government" is code. Translated, it means: we, the Conservative party are going to give big business everything it's wanted - or, at least, try - and to hell with society.
>Of the 3 parties, it is the Lib-Dems who are probably the most left of the lot
LOL! They've just jumped in bed with the Tories.
Did you miss the part where the TORIES, with the Lib-Dems, where a TORY government is proposing laws to rein in the banks.
I repeat: THE TORIES ARE PROPOSING TO REIN IN THE BANKS. THE TORIES.
"LOL! They've just jumped in bed with the Tories."
LOL! POLITICS is what matters. ISSUES are what matters. The Lib-Dems and the Tories are proposing to do leftish things that Labor has refused to do.
In coalition negotiations with Labour, one of the key Lib-Dem proposals was the waiving of tax for people with incomes lower than 10k. Labour categorically refused. The soi-dissant party of the left refused to defend the poorest and the weakest.
"No mention from Cameron about curtailing the influence of BIG business. Fooling the British is as easy as taking candy from a baby.
You really think you can have a functional society when it is those in government that tell us how to live and relate to each other?"
Uhh, your 2 paragraphs here contradict each other.
Your second paragraph is exactly the argument that Cameron uses for his big society.
the Tories are not to the left of Labour.
Of the 3 parties, it is the Lib-Dems who are probably the most left of the lot.
----------------------
I agree that the LDs are the leftist of the three. Yet it was the Tories, not "New Labour", who agreed to the LDs' coalition demand:
"Several senior Labour figures, including John Reid and David Blunkett, warned against a coalition with the Lib Dems, particularly if the price involved offering them a referendum on changing the voting system to proportional representation."
That was indeed the price, and the Tories are paying it.
The Tories are willing to have a referendum on PR... for the Lords.
They have agreed to a referendum on Alternate Vote for the Commons. AV is NOT PR. I repeat AV is NOT PR. AV can concentrate on a duopoly just as much as FPTP plurality. AV is better than FPTP, but it is a pretty bad electoral ssytem.
As for Labour not agreeing to PR, this is hardly a surprise. The politics of many in Labour can be summed up as:
Tories are scum, hate the Tories.
Labour in power.
That's all they care about. They don't care that a change to PR will shift politics in the UK significantly to the left. Labour as currently constituted will not support PR. They had 13 years, overwhelming majorities. The electoral reform they did was to reform the Lords into a monstrosity that is worse than the prior version, and gerrymander with constituency boundaries so that they could win more seats for less votes.
Labour needs Robin Cook. Many more of him. Unfortunately, he is dead, and the party is full of the likes of Blunkett, Reid, Diane Abbott
Like I said, Cameron, and some of his close allies, is likely to left of his party. But the rump of the party are closet Thatcherites just waiting to drop the masks.
Promises, promises, and more promises.
Here cometh yet another one!
'He also paid tribute to the courage of the armed forces, adding: "I will never forget all those who have died in honour and whose families today live in grief."'
It's kind of contradictory to claim to want to work for a fairer, more democratic society, while also paying tribute to the armed forces, for the British and for most others.
Armed forces may only be considered legitimate when assigned to defend the better interested of the people. Too often, and perhaps 99% of the time, armed forces are assigned to implement the imperial agendas of elites, usually under some pretext of defending the interests of the people.
Most recently the British armed forces joined their partners in crime, the USans, in the imperial expansion of whitey dominion over the "strategeric" natural resources under and around the Middle East and Central Asia.
100 million USans voted the thug squads back into the whitey house and the congruss in Nov 2008, signaling their consent for the imperial rampage. And the British are still honoring their armed forces. There will be no rest for the wicked.
"God save the queen!
We mean it man!
There is no future!
In England's dreamland!
NO future
NO future
No future for you!"
I understand that old bitch is by far the richest person in the world.
Tell me again what is wrong with socialism?
The Queen is FAR from being the richest person in the world, at least according to Forbes. They estimate her PERSONAL fortune at around $400-500 million.
That means - shock, horror! - the UK doesn't control the U.S., and Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and chums, are far, far richer.
Britain is NOT a socialist country. Over the last twenty years, its economy and society has, more and more, come to resemble America's, even down to the obsession with fame and wealth. The UK government is right-wing and supports big business, just like the US government. The incoming Conservative party is going to make Britain far more of a corporate-controlled state, one with no sympathy for anyone who is poor.
Finally, to answer your question: what is wrong with socialism? What is wrong with it is this: it doesn't exist, not in the UK or US!
Is there someone here who could comment on the War on Terror's impact on this election?
I thought their antiwar stance was a major contributer to the Lib Dems popularity but the silence on this issue in the mainstream -- and even other -- media has been deafening. They certainly didn't do very well in the poles. Was it a factor?
It is hard to tell how much any particular issue affects voting, given that FPTP pushes people to engage in tactical voting to keep out the party you dislike the most out.
Alternative News Main Street Palm Coast Local There is a war on for your mind Online Democracy Patriot Top Breaking Classifieds Investigative Financial Political People who want to do something positive - www.bailoutmainstreetnow.com - Channel your energies in a positive way. Here are some suggestions, build a web page, phone your congressman, attend meetings in your local area with like minded people to form or support freedom coalitions, email your local representatives, call Washington, have group viewings videos that have verified information pertaining to amendment rights... www.bailoutmainstreetnow.com
Labour's hypocrisy is just incredible. They come into power in 1997 promising proportional representation, but cynically renege when they realize that they can get about 60% of the seats in the House of Commons with 40% of the vote under first past the post. Then, they have the gall to complain about the spoiler effect in the 2001, 2005, and 2010 general elections. Instead of earning the votes of Britons who should be their core supporters by staying out of the Iraq war, preserving civil liberties, and not cozying up to the banks, they try to scare them into not voting for third parties by threatening them with the Tories.
Even when faced with the prospect of forming a slender majority with the Lib Dems and regional parties to keep the Tories out, Labour would rather lose power than share it. Give in to the Lib Dems and other parties on proportional representation? No way! Better to subject the poor that they claim to care so much about to what will be by their own arguments the monstrous depredations of the Tories! Labour governs alone or does not govern at all. The little people have to sacrifice their principles to vote for Labour and keep the Tories out, but Labor will be damned if they practice what they preach.