Acid Rabbi Poll Results - The ConLib Coalition

Politics fans might want to sit down before reading on, because hot on the heels of the General Election comes... drum roll... the results of the Acid Rabbi poll! And as if that wasn't enough excitement, it seems the whole nation has gone utterly election crazy because we had a record response to this one: an amazing nine - yes, nine - people took the time to let us know what they thought of the Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition.

As you can see, just 22% of those who took part believe the coalition to be a good thing with the same amount reckoning it to be bad. But 55% - a figure sufficient to dissolve Parliament even if Dave and Nick get their way - think it's terrible. Whether you agree with first-past-the-post or proportional representation, those numbers speak for themselves: most people, among those who voted and whatever their political allegiances, do not support the coalition.

Now, if we assume nine people is a sufficient number to be indicative of the nation as a whole we'll probably have to factor in some space for statistical error (space equal to the size of the Gulf of Mexico oil slick ought to do it); but we're probably at least relatively safe in assuming that if 55% of nine people do not support something, it's unlikely that 100% of 57 people will support it - thus, it seems a little odd that this is the level of support the coalition achieved among LibDem MPs. This suggests any of three factors: one, they're all too scared to stand up for themselves; two, they've ignored the thoughts and fears of party councillors, activists and voters; three, they know something we don't, which was kept from us by the secrecy surrounding the coalition negotiations.

Result of one is the Tories are going to eat them alive and the LibDems risk vanishing forever; result of two is the LibDem-voting electorate become angry and take their support elsewhere which, as Tory-hating supporters are already jumping ship and joining Labour may well result in the LibDems vanishing forever; result of three is the LibDem councillors, activists and voters become very angry and demand Nick Clegg's head, causing the party to lose the most charismatic leader it's had in decades, face further years in the wilderness and risk vanishing forever - though if three is the case, the party will probably get away with it just so long as the last week's success doesn't prove to be a honeymoon and married life continues to be bliss from a LibDem point of view.

Only time will tell.

Anyway, time for a new poll. Who do you think will be the next Labour leader?

Does the 55% Rule rule out democracy?

With everything that's been going on this week in the wake of the election and the Cameron/Clegg marriage, the proposed 55% rule hasn't had even half the impact it would at any other time. However, it's certainly sent waves through Parliament, with even veteran MP Richard Ottaway, a prospective chair of the powerful Tory 1922 Committee, entering the row by warning the move could end the "primacy of Parliament."

The happy couple...but for how long?

(Image credit: Daily Telegraph)

In short, the rule will mean that for Parliament to be dissolved prior to the end of the newly fixed five year terms, at least 55% of MPs must vote in favour, rather than 51% as has previously been the case. David Cameron agreed the rule with his new Liberal Democrat friends to reassure them that his party will not back out of the coalition deal should his party achieve opinion poll success and call a General Election safe in the knowledge that the Conservatives could gain sufficient MPs to form a majority.

You might be thinking that this seems unusually altruistic, and you'd be correct: from Cameron's point of view, it also has the valuable side-effect of meaning that, should the coalition fail - as many supporters and activists of both parties believe it ultimately will, with many MPs in all likelihood secretly thinking the same thing - it means that the opposition, be it Labour or a future Labour-LibDem coalition, would find it very difficult to garner enough support to call for Parliament to be dissolved prior to the end of the five year term. This means that, should the pact fail, the Conservatives would be able to continue as the ruling party even without a majority - almost a guarantee that they could stay in power despite their failure to win last week's election.

Christopher Chope, Conservative MP for Southampton Itchen between 1983 and 1992 and Christchurch since 1997, warns: "If the present government was to lose its majority in Parliament and wasn't able to operate as a minority government because it didn't enjoy the confidence of a sufficient number of MPs, then what is being suggested is that it would carry on."

"It is not the duty of Parliament to prop up this coalition," says Charles Walker, the Tory MP for Broxbourne in Hertfordshire (really nice Chinese restaurant called Sky City at the Tower Centre by the way, folks). He continues, "This is a matter of convenience, because clearly the leader of our party, David Cameron, wants a five year Parliament and the Liberal Democrats want fixed terms and they don't want there to be a General Election along the way. But if Parliament and the nation lose confidence in this coalition government, there should be a General Election, whether that is in two years or three years or four years."

Richard Ottaway, who like Mr. Chope has had a break from Parliament for just five years since 1983 after he lost his Nottingham North seat to Labour before winning Croydon South in 1992, calls the rule "constitutionally incoherent."

Cameron, naturally, defends the concept, claiming to be "the first Prime Minister in British history to give up the right unilaterally to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. This is a big change on our system, it is a big giving-up of power."

Is Cameron one of the many who privately expects the coalition to fail? You can choose to believe he's doing this to give more power to MPs of all parties and to reassure the LibDems or you can choose to believe that he's seeking a way in which he can guarantee himself a full five year term even if the nation wants him and his party out of power, but you'd have to be a very committed DavCam fan indeed if you didn't think he had a bigger smile on his smug face when Nick Clegg put this one on the debating table than he does when his butler whips the cloche off a silver platter piled high with lobsters, white truffles and Beluga.

Stunning new astronomy images

NtASA have published stunning new photographs showing the moment that, using its enormous gravitational pull, the vast M27/NGC 6835 galaxy ("The Oak") strips countless stars from the M64/NGC 4826 dwarf galaxy ("The Yellowbird") that orbits it, incorporating them into its own mass. Astronomers believe that, in time, the larger body will completely absorb its tiny neighbour.

2015

After five long years in a bunker the Liberal Democrats emerge blinking among the rubble, unscathed by the battles that have dogged the minority Tory government and ready for government.

...and that's why they shouldn't form a coalition with anyone.

Clegg and Cameron - when love ends

Ever made the mistake of putting off something your partner wants to do - maybe a holiday, moving in together, marriage, something pervy - for so long that eventually they decide you're never going to do it and move on? And then you're wracked with remorse so you contact them and beg them to come back, promising you'll do anything they ask in future, but it's all too late because they've found someone else who does do whatever it was you wouldn't?

Well anyway - let's just hope Clegg makes the right decision. The Liberal Democrats would be so much better off with Labour, rather than being Cameron's bitches. You go, girl!

Results of the LibDem/Tory pact

Messrs. Cameron and Clegg in a breakfast meeting at the Conservative Party HQ, one summer morning a couple of months after forming a coalition in the wake of the 2010 General Election.

The LibDems should "Just Say No" to the Tories

Just prior to noticing a bottle of 25-year-old Laphroaig has appeared recently behind the bar and thus ending up unable to hold conversation, Acid Rabbi conducted a short informal survey among friends and acquaintances in the pub last night so as to be able to get some idea of popular public opinion re. the probable Conservative/Liberal Democrat pact.

The general consensus appears to be as follows:

Tory voters: "Who cares?"

Labour voters: "No! We need them! And they have more in common with us!"

LibDem voters: "If Clegg goes for it, I'm never voting LibDem again."

No, Nick! Those sweeties are poisoned!

Let's have a look at those in reverse order. LibDem voters, it seems, feel cheated by the prospect of a pact between the two parties - this is, in large part, because with the LibDems edging slightly leftward and Labour wholeheartedly stomping rightward ever since 1997 and the rise of Blair, the LibDems are frequently left of Labour these days. This has caused many traditional Labour voters, finding themselves without a Socialist option to vote for in national elections, to up sticks and support the LibDems instead; these being the sorts of people who maintain a deep-seated loathing for the Tory party and all Tory policy. Other - traditional - LibDem voters will feel, if such a pact is made, that they have been duped and that their LibDem vote was a scam, allowing the Tories into power. So, all in all, Nick Clegg risks alienating a large percentage of LibDem support.

The LibDems quite probably do have more in common with at least some sections of the Labour party, which still has a few traditionally-minded MPs - the hoary old socialist warhorses are long gone now, but there remains a phalanx of leftists who spend most of their time being quiet nowadays but, once in a while, wake up; as is the case with the Socialist Campaign Group, to whom the Dark Lord Mandelson was almost certainly referring when he warned Gordon Brown of a shadowy group of MPs who sought nothing less than his downfall back in June last year. Groups like that might very well make good allies for the LibDems - not least of all because the SCG advocates the scrapping of both Trident and ID cards, both LibDem policies.

Tory voters are so convinced that, due to the Conservatives being the largest party in the Commons, they have won the election that they don't seem to see any need to form a coalition with anyone, thank you very much. They may well be right: the party came so much closer to an overall majority than either Labour or the LibDems that if another General Election is called soon, as is very likely to be the case due to the hung parliament, they won't have anything like as much work to do to achieve the extra seats they need. This, however, does not necessarily make them a backdoor to power for the LibDems, because it seems highly unlikely that David Cameron will allow many of Clegg's requests - the Conservatives are far less favourable when it comes to the EU than the LibDebs, are absolutely opposed to scrapping Trident and, Cameron has made clear since the election, not willing to even discuss electoral reform in any seriousness. All of which are matters very close to Liberal Democrat hearts.

As we all know, we're going to see deep and savage cuts in all sorts of services and raised taxation may well become necessary as, at the time of writing, each and every British taxpayer needs to pay over £32,000 if the nation is to pay off its debts (there's a counter at the bottom of this page if you want to know the exact figure). Though all three main parties discussed this at great length during the run up to the election, the matter was heavily glossed-over during public debate, leaving us in the dark about just how savage these cuts will need to be - the only thing that seems certain is the next few years are going to be very hard indeed. Whichever party finds itself in power - either by forming a pact with the LibDems or, as Labour would need to do, with the LibDems and some other groups - might just find it has shot itself in the foot here, because when the public feel those cuts and realise how deep they are, they're not going to be happy. Had we have been properly warned, we might have had time to accept - but we haven't been properly warned, so many people will react with anger which, in five years' time when another General Election comes round, will probably manifest itself as a massive swing away from whichever party finds itself on top once we're out of the current hung parliament mess.

Whichever party that is, it's likely to find itself all but annihilated for at least ten years, possibly a generation. The larger parties would, in time, recover - it'd hurt the Tories but they'd survive, just as they survived Blair. Labour would be hit hard, but they too would survive - they managed to live on after the disastrous 1983 election when under Michael Foot's leadership they were hammered by the Conservatives, led by Margaret Thatcher who was riding high following the UK's triumph in the Falklands. The Liberal Democrats, however, despite having seemed strong enough to move into second place in the Commons just two and half weeks ago, are a considerably smaller and weaker party, as has been shown by Thursday's results. A body blow of the type they'd experience if they're part of the next government might easily finish them off for good - it could well be a killer punch, rather than the mere knockout it would be for the bigger parties.

With that in mind, the best thing for Nick Clegg to do could be to take a step back and forget power for the time being, ride out the storm and wait, keeping his party intact and independent. A week is a long time in politics yet, strangely, five years is not. If the Tories rise to the top, the electorate - when they're fed up, aching and furious that they weren't warned about the extent of the trouble ahead - will be wanting to make their anger felt. Many, looking at Labour, will still remember how determined they were to punish them in 2010 and so instead they'll want an alternative - and the LibDems, promising once again a different, fresh approach - will be there, with Nick Clegg working the magic we saw in the Leader's Debates and Vince Cable seeming as ever a much more human prospect than George Osborne, looking for all the world like an attractively-wrapped birthday gift.

Your time will come, Mr. Clegg. Just have patience.

The Leaders' Debate 2 - another 90 minutes of light entertainment

Sky News hosted the second Leader's Debate last night from Bristol's Arnolfini arts centre as measures designed to ensure British elections become little more than a US-style gladiatorial contest continue. Eschewing last week's 1980s Countdown stage set look, they apparently bought up some old bits and pieces used for televised darts matches instead. The Kraftwerk-minus-one-member-(and talent) imagery was also gone - this week, the leaders stood behind what may have been designer refrigerators.

Gordon Brown's not looking too healthy these days - going head-to-head with

Cameron and Clegg seems too much for him.

Daveyboy Cameron put on a much better show than last week and was altogether sharper and more on the ball. He wasted no time in getting the knives out for Gordon Brown when he demanded that the PM withdraw leaflets accusing the Tories of wanting to cut benefits for the elderly - Mr. Brown, who looked uncomfortable, claimed that he had not authorised leaflets making any such claim. This could well prove to be one of the biggest mistakes of his life - Cameron's claims were effortlessly backed up by various Labour MPs and pundits right after the show when they produced an assortment of those very leaflets as evidence.

Poor old Gordon! We may loathe the old curmudgeon and we might think he should never have been the Prime Minister in the first place, but we don't half feel sorry for the old sod. While Cameron had done his homework and prepared himself for the previously underestimated foe that is Nick Clegg and his oratory skills, Brown didn't really do any better than last week. He looks exhausted and as though he's beginning to melt - if his temper is truly as bad as has been claimed, we hope he loses the forthcoming Election and retires from politics for the good of his own heart's health as well as that of the nation.

Cameron also made a less successful to attack the LibDem's golden boy, accusing him of being holier-then-thou over the expenses scandal. That may be the case, but the fact remains that Clegg's party came out of that mess in much better shape than the other main parties and, during the early days when recriminations and accusations were flying about the Commons in even bigger flocks than the bullshit, the LibDems gave the impression of doing something about it while Labour and the Conservatives tried to score points.

On the same topic, neither Cameron nor Brown made much of a big deal over the recent allegations that several transfers of £750 from donors into his private bank account. Clegg has since come clean, admitting that he received a total of £20,000 in this way - political suicide in the current climate were it not for the fact that he has a full set of bank statements showing the money was used for its totally legitimate purpose - paying a member of staff. So why was so little made of this? Could it be that Labour and the Tories believe that the Liberal Democrats are, in fact, holier-than-them and knew there was no point in slinging mud where none would stick? They were more than happy to make plenty of noise about it in the run-up to last night's debate, however, perhaps hoping to tarnish Clegg's reputation after he wiped the floor with them last week.

Nick, it must be said, did not do quite so well as previously, though it's our opinion than he still put in a better effort than his rivals - had Cameron have been quite as dire as last week, Clegg may well have aced it once again. There was a brief display of showmanship when he raised a genuine laugh from the crowd by pointing out that Brown's plan to repatriate illegal immigrants is impossible if you don't know who or where those immigrants are. Brown, unusually, attempted a spot of humour too when he said that Dave and Nick's tussles reminded him of his own young sons at bathtime - Clegg retaliated by claiming "It was a good line in rehearsal," which seemed relatively unimportant until The Guardian managed to get hold of copies of overhead photographs proving that the line was in fact pre-prepared and written down on the PM's crib sheet, making Brown look more wooden than ever.

The first poll to deliver results - somewhat unsurprisingly, that organised on behalf of Tory snotrag The Sun - claimed Cameron was the winner with 36% of viewers believing he had been the star of the show, but the very next disagreed and placed Clegg in pole position once again with 33%, Cameron and Brown winning 30% apiece. More results were soon winging their way onto our screens, with the general consensus being that there was no clear winner. However, we strongly disagree with this - there was, in our eyes, a very clear winner: whichever Sky News employee came up with the quite frankly stunning animations projected onto Bristol's Arnolfini building.

Make sure you tune in for next week's show, folks - DavCam is going to be determined to be clear winner in at least one of the debates that he supported right from the start and Cleggy will be wanting to go out in style. It could well prove to be the clash of the New Labour and LibDem titans. Oh - and who knows, Gordon Brown might even bother to get out of bed for a third go.

BNP to LibDems? WTF?

Not too far from Acid Rabbi Towers is a house that, during the European Elections last year, had a BNP poster displayed in its window. Mrs. Rabbi, who walks past the house daily, regularly sees the man who lives there and so we know for a fact that the man who put up the BNP poster is still living there.

Today I walked past and guess what? He has a big Liberal Democrat poster on display. Explain that if you can.

We have no BNP candidate standing here, so he wouldn't have been able to vote for them anyway - but nevertheless, if you have any belief in the BNP and their extreme right wing policies, you're unlikely to pick the central left LibDems as an alternative so what could possibly have caused such a seismic shift in one man's opinions?

If it was Nick Clegg's performance in last week's Leaders' Debate, then Mr. Clegg can be assured he achieved something in this election even if he's not the Prime Minister by May the 7th because convincing even one individual not to vote for the fascists is worthy of praise.

One thing that does still concern us is that the ex-BNP supporter also has a Status Quo poster in his window (which seems a peculiar mix). While opposing everything the BNP say and do, we respect the right of each member of the electorate in this democratic nation to support any political party they choose - but try as we might, we can see no excuse whatsoever for liking Quo.

The Election Debate...in 15 seconds

Created by Morten Morland

The Leaders' Debate: a mere sideshow trifle

This was, without doubt, the worst Kraftwerk gig I've ever watched.

The circus was well and truly in town for one night only in Manchester last night, with three clowns bringing joy and light into the lives of the benighted serfs that inhabit the God-forsaken hole. David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg each performed a hilarious comedy routine with much slapstick, custard pie throwing and tipping of buckets full of brightly coloured confetti into one another's pants. The crowd went wild - or at least, they would have done, but "pre-arranged rules" and in all likelihood cattle prod-wielding security ensured they remained rooted to their seats and kept shtum. A Question Time audience would have jeered themselves hoarse.

The general consensus is that the boy Clegg, who looked about 20, did rather well for himself - he looked calm and relaxed and even cracked a semi-joke or two at the others expense. Cameron was caught by surprise on a number of occasions by presenter Alastair Stewart, who wasn't taking shit from anyone, when he was cut off mid-flow and left gawping "but...but..." like a semi-sentient goldfish. Brown, bless his little tartan socks, tried his best and forced a smile or two, but as is his downfall he came across as dour, moody and tired. Opinion polls today seem to agree Cleggy delivered - the LibDems are showing a marked upturn, while Labour and the Tories dive downwards. It'd not enough to win them the election, but if Nick can keep it up they may well be in for their best result in decades.

The leaders discussed a variety of issues, including Acid Rabbi favourites immigration (none of them taking quite as liberal a position as we would - ie; let people go where they want when they want - but it's apparent each party has some reasonably solid ideas. Sadly all ideas based on dealing with widespread public worries by limiting immigration rather than educating them so they understand immigration is more likely to solve than cause problems, but there you have it. Clegg pulled a real trick on this one by being the only participant to actually say something nice about immigrants, a fact that will do him no end of favours since the majority of British people are not racist) and MP's expenses, which took the form of the usual "we're really, really sorry" with a noticeable lisp on the 's' in sorry which is hissed out by their devious, forked tongues. This one was always going to play well for Clegg as the LibDems came out of the expenses scandal in far better shape than the other main parties. Cameron and Brown made all the usual noises but it was evident that the stage, which looked rather like it had been cobbled together from 1988-vintage Countdown sets (and thinking of it, doesn't Alastair Stewart look a little like a cadaverous Richard Whiteley?) had become a very uncomfortable place.

The economy took up a fair chunk of the show and Mrs. Rabbi, who is a woman and thus has a keen eye for details such as this, noted that the cost of Parliament for 2010 could have been reduced dramatically had the three amigos chosen to wear something out of their wardrobes or an off-the-peg BHS suit rather than each spending something probably not far off the average British family's monthly income on some admittedly fine-lookin' threads. Clegg - easily the cutest of the three, says Mrs. Rabbi - wore a smooth charcoal grey number with a LibDem yellow tie and he wore it well, looking relaxed, comfortable and even cool. Cameron, as ever, looked like a boiled potato in a regulation dark blue Tory suit with blue tie but having been born in Savile Row's finest it was a boiled potato dressed with the very finest mayonnaise. His shoes looked like they probably worth as much as a healthy pair of kidneys on the black market (and who knows? Being a Tory, they may well have been made of kidneys ripped from the lithe young body of a working class teenager). Brown went for dour-yet-dependable black. That he - a man who is not in the very best of shape - looked notably prime ministerial is token of his tailor's admirable skills. He wore the Red Tie of Socialism, which he possibly sees as a suitable replacement for flying the Red Flag that his predecessor ripped up and burnt back in 1997. Sadly, he was unable to sound prime ministerial and came across as slightly confused, sad and wishing he was elsewhere.

That got us thinking - what did the gig actually achieve, especially when so many important matters - technology, the Middle East and so on - were not mentioned? Well: Clegg persuaded a few undecideds who vote according to how good a candidate looks on the telly that they should go with him and Cameron and Brown convinced a few others that doing so might not be a bad idea. That was about it, really. But it's not even nearly enough to make a LibDem government a likely prospect - while the Daily Telegraph claims that if the General Election was held today, the LibDems would win 159 seats (Labour would win 165, the Tories 294), Clegg's inability to throw himself headlong into political scraps will ensure last night's performance is forgotten by all but a few pundits and bloggers by the 6th of May so if anything it just makes a hung parliament look more probable. Secondly, what did it cost? ITV, perhaps because they took the unusual decision not to screen any adverts for the full 90 minutes, spent little - the set probably cost about a fiver and whereas Stewart is doubtless not on minimum wage whatever they paid him will be seen as a bargain in return for 9.8 million viewers (plus however much other channels pay them for the right to show the debate) - but whatever they spent will have been covered by their own budget, which is made up of what advertisers pay them. How much, we wonder, did it cost us, the tax-payers?

It was obvious that in addition to their posh suits and shiny shoes, each leader had been subject to a whole host of image consultants, stylists and who knows what else over the last few weeks. Their voices may have faltered as they argued around tricky points, but visually all three men were stunning. Clegg, who had been jotting down notes throughout, made a great show of reciting the names of those who had asked questions (including Joel, the rabbi's son who drove Nick Griffin into a corner during his notorious Question Time appearance and wouldn't let him out again, a lad who will probably be presenting programmes of this type in a few years' time) and thanking them - perhaps it was insincere and a calculated attempt to make him look more human, but coming at the end of 90 minutes in which he had shown himself to have infinitely better manners than his rivals it was PR gold and charmed the crowd. Brown, perhaps realising suddenly that this was his last chance to show he too cares about the proles, made a last ditch effort and shook hands with a few members of the audience. Cameron stood staring ahead, as if trying to work out whether or not his performance was sufficiently poor to put his party behind Labour in the polls - it wasn't, though we're not going to pretend you didn't do a piss-poor job last night, posh boy.

Many bloggers are calling the debate a gladiatorial contest but we disagree. While entertaining, it was nothing more than an mildly amusing circus routine. Some people will have decided who to vote for last night, but let's credit the public with some intellect - most people don't vote according to how nice Clegg, Cameron or Brown's suit looks, how shiny their shoes are or how accomplished a performer on stage they are (though I have to admit, had one of them showed up in paratrooper boots, combat trousers and a Crass t-shirt they'd have earned a lifetime's party membership fees from me). Even in these days of gym-joining narcissism, botox and celebrity-worship, the majority of the electorate vote for the candidate representing the party that supports the views they share and the causes they believe in. The Liberal Democrats scored some valuable points last night, the Conservatives lost some and Labour flogged a dead horse but all three demonstrated their belief that the public are a bit thick with loyalties that can be bought for a few shiny trinkets.

"I might have promised you a rose garden" tra-la-la

Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, stated publicly that although he had claimed £680 expenses to pay for a rose garden his intention was to later sell the property and pay any profit to the public purse.

"I've always said," he said, "well before these controversies: when I sell that home, the money, the profit, it all goes back to the taxpayer .... I will give it back." In doing so, he even managed to concoct a vaguely believable excuse, unlike all the other MPs who are currently scurrying around like chickens when the chicken shagger comes to town screeching, "Shit! They're onto us, lads - run for it!"

Now, Acid Rabbi - a lifelong LibDem voter, due to his belief that they're the least rotten apples in the barrel and that the vast majority of the population are just too stupid for anarchy to ever work - may have gone a bit easy on old Cleggy earlier today when reading his claims. Perhaps we gave him the benefit of the doubt, thinking, "Hmm, yes, maybe he did say that. Can't remember when, but just maybe the Libs are come out of this not quite so coated in and full of shite as the others. Fingers crossed. Right then - it's 10.30am...pub?"

Of course, after two decades following British politics, we all should have known a lot better and remembered that they're all as bad as each other. It goes without saying that increasing the value of a property for such altruistic reasons would be an honourable action, especially as he could quite easily pocket the cash like some MPs have been doing.

Have the LibDems been shitting on us too? Yeah - 'course they have!

The Guardian has raised the point we didn't want to bring up though. Precisely when did Clegg say this? He claims it was several months ago, but you can't help but wonder if he's just another liar, trying his hardest to wriggle his nasty little way out of trouble.

Still, we've learned our lesson. Never, ever trust the bastards.