Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[mainiac]

It's really satisfying to see the idiots who left voting reform to die on the vine in the UK getting hoisted on their own petard.  It seemed so inconceivable that the two party dominance to them would break down.  I bet they would leap at an opportunity to pass a reform today.

[Digital Hellhound]

Yeah, but who cares about those guys, anyway?

You'll see. Our Finno-Ugric and Assorted Leftovers Discussion throws the best parties, and you're not invited.

[Owlbread]

It's really satisfying to see the idiots who left voting reform to die on the vine in the UK getting hoisted on their own petard.  It seemed so inconceivable that the two party dominance to them would break down.  I bet they would leap at an opportunity to pass a reform today.

That they would. I believe I heard calls from Labour/Tory politicians along those lines.

[mainiac]

What would SNP need to be enticed into a two or three party coalition?

[Owlbread]

What would SNP need to be enticed into a two or three party coalition?

They formally ruled out working with the Conservatives and Labour ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP. The only things that seem likely are a confidence and supply agreement or some kind of agreement to work with Labour in an issue by issue basis. The SNP would prefer the latter.

[Sheb]

Why did Labour refuse a coalition with the SNP?

[Owlbread]

Why did Labour refuse a coalition with the SNP?

Because they hate the SNP more than anything in the world. To put it less dramatically, they're desperate to shift the SNP's 6 month poll lead and they think the way to do that is to make it look like if the SNP win Cameron will get in. It's their entire election pitch in Scotland.

[Sheb]

That make sense, but will they hod that promise after the vote? We all saw how quickly they turned after the referendum...

[Owlbread]

That make sense, but will they hod that promise after the vote? We all saw how quickly they turned after the referendum...

I think the fact Labour haven't ruled out confidence and supply speaks volumes.

[mainiac]

I thought the big concessions to small coalition members were made prior to a government being formed.  Why would SNP agree to let labor form a government without getting their issues in the agenda?

[lorb]

The US-Iran relationship began to deteriorate 1979 when the pro-American Shah was ousted. The US allowed the Shah to seek treatment for his cancer in the US and that angered some Iranian groups into taking everyone in the US embassy hostage. Relations never bettered after that. But this thread is _european_ politics.

Wow, that wikipedia article is pretty badly laid out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Do if I'm understanding it right... there are 2 different heads of government.  The Shah and the Prime Minister?  Cause their reigns overlapped.
Shah - 1941-1979, close ties with US and overthrown by Iranian Revolution.
Prime Minister - -1953, CIA backed coup cause oil

The pro-murica shah was not a bastion of human welfare to begin with.  Not cause he went to murica.
EDIT: Shit pretty sure this was in there too but I couldn't find it again.  He probably just pissed off the Islamic hardliners.

The shah was the only head of government with any real power. Exactly the other way around that the UK have a queen and a prime minister. Basically he was ousted by the Iranian people because he was a nasty dictator. Because he was pro-US and people hate him, they also hate the US who aided the exiled Shah.

[Reelya]

Well the Shah was related to the overthrow of the only democratic government they'd ever had. We let Iran be democratic for 2 years then decided to stick a dictator in instead because we didn't like who they voted for. It's a bit more deep that they just "hate the US" for no reason. They hated the US for imposing a fascist dictator over their fledgling democracy. At the time of the 1979 revolution, the US's role in the 1953 coup had become public knowledge for quite a while.

[Owlbread]

I thought the big concessions to small coalition members were made prior to a government being formed.  Why would SNP agree to let labor form a government without getting their issues in the agenda?

I think the SNP are extremely wary of entering any kind of formal coalition themselves because in the UK we have a history of small coalition members (e.g. Lib Dems) being utterly shafted by the dominant coalition partner.  They will probably try to get certain issues into the agenda e.g. more devolution and exemption for the Scottish NHS in any TTIP agreement, but most likely that will be done as a vote-by-vote thing to keep Labour on their toes. Any kind of formal pact will be negotiated after the election however - Labour wouldn't dare discuss it before then. Because of the way UK politics works we won't hear anything until after May 8th. 

EDIT:

There's been an information leak. The SNP's red line issue has been revealed.

[smjjames]

So the red line is that Salmond should be Speaker of the House (and becomes PM? I'm a bit confused about how it works)?

Also "Labour sources say that Ed Miliband would not object to the SNP demand providing that the SNP agrees to vote for the queen’s speech presented by Labour.", so the queen doesn't even get to write her own speech? heh. Wonder if that goes back to the Magna Carta or something.

[Owlbread]

So the red line is that Salmond should be Speaker of the House (and becomes PM? I'm a bit confused about how it works)

The Prime Minister and the Speaker of the house are separate positions.

Also "Labour sources say that Ed Miliband would not object to the SNP demand providing that the SNP agrees to vote for the queen’s speech presented by Labour.", so the queen doesn't even get to write her own speech? heh. Wonder if that goes back to the Magna Carta or something.

It's part of the state opening of parliament. The Queen gives a speech explaining what "Her Government" plans to do over their term in office etc.