Lib Dems & Tories... Can they work together?

lostinrates

treliac wrote: »

With all this incentive, wouldn't you have expected a higher turnout than 65% ?

yes.


From that point a lone it would be interesting to knw how many were turned away. I would love to know that this terribly exciting time and opportunity was wanted by more.

Ninky raises Iran, and I agree...and that we have these opportunities and yet...aren't that bothered or engaged is ...at the least, a little sobering.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

treliac wrote: »

With all this incentive, wouldn't you have expected a higher turnout than 65% ?

there are still a lot of people that aren't covered by those incentives though, that don't have any selfish reason to vote labour. it would be interesting to known the turnout for people the receive tax credits, or a state pension.

a lot of people live in a constituency where it's 'impossible' for your vote to count.

treliac

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

there are still a lot of people that aren't covered by those incentives though, that don't have any selfish reason to vote labour. it would be interesting to known the turnout for people the receive tax credits, or a state pension.

a lot of people live in a constituency where it's 'impossible' for your vote to count.

True, but looking beyond those scenarios, and surely the intelligent person doesn't say, 'I won't vote as my vote won't count', there are still very many who - despite having vested interests - don't read nor view political journalism and won't make the connection between leaving the sofa to put a cross on a piece of paper and maintaining their current lifestyle.

No amount of campaigning is going to reach vast numbers of potential (35%?) voters.

And I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of voting figures too.

ninky_2

treliac wrote: »

............ which is?

fabrication welding. 7am - 5pm everyday in a workshop. fumes, dirt, noise, heat, physically demanding. been to hospital more than once this year to have small fragments of metal removed from eyes that the goggles / mask failed to stop.

ninky_2

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

i have to laugh when labour supporters get wound up about ashcroft's donations. labour have their own non-doms, but that's beside the point...

how much of the public's money is indirectly backing the labour campaign? the tax credit budget was £20 billion/year last time I looked. i've lost count of the amount of posts I've seen that from people worried the tories will take away their tax credits. in the election campaign, labour falsely claimed we can afford to continue the tax credit system without any cuts, even for relatively high earning households. i wonder who they will vote for...

i wonder who all the pensioners labour has bribed with free bus pass, prescriptions, TV licences and winter fuel payments will vote for?

i wonder who the people in the hundreds of thousands of new public sector (non) jobs labour has created will vote for...?

so helping average people to a better standard of living is bribery is it?

what we have now is a society where everyone has some sort of bearable standard of living. i'd far rather live in that sort of society than one which is divided. we've yet to create a system that totally does away with unemployment, family breakdown, neglected children etc. the problem with the conservatives is they see purpose in suffering and poverty as if it's some fantastic motivator. when in fact it leads to social disorder, crime etc.

chris_m

treliac wrote: »

Nor did we! You're probably in the same position as us - a safe seat in which nothing is gained by canvassing. The winner was always going to win and challengers would have wasted their time.

Nor did we - presumably for the same reason.
However, we came within 200 votes and 0.5% by votes of ousting the incumbant Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who had a 20% lead in 2005. Just think what a bit of canvassing might have done.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

ninky wrote: »

so helping average people to a better standard of living is bribery is it?

what we have now is a society where everyone has some sort of bearable standard of living.

if they wanted to raise standards of living, why don't they just lower taxes for people on low incomes, like the 10p rate that brown abolished?

why do we have the ridiculously complex tax credit system? it's because labour want to give people the impression 'government' is giving them something for nothing - that's the bribery element.

all pensioners don't need all these benefits, only poor pensioners do - how can it not be a bribe when so many people that receive it do not need it?

why is it that benefit entitlement falls so sharply when people work more hours/more money? it's because labour want to keep people dependent...

ninky wrote: »

i'd far rather live in that sort of society than one which is divided. we've yet to create a system that totally does away with unemployment, family breakdown, neglected children etc. the problem with the conservatives is they see purpose in suffering and poverty as if it's some fantastic motivator. when in fact it leads to social disorder, crime etc.

our society is more divided in terms of wealth distribution than thatcher - and once the unaffordable benefits system is reduced by the next lib/lab or tory/lib government to pay the deficit, it will be even more divided. once the unsustainable levels of public sector employment are reduced, we will have even more unemployment.

labour's approach to making our society better is a complete failure. their approach is basically to give all the badly paid jobs to immigrants, create hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs for all our ex-industrial workers, and make the benefits system even more unsustainable and less geared towards work than under major. it's a house of cards, as we are learning now.

Entertainer

PhylPho wrote: »

Now I'm getting even more confused than usual on here: it took me a moment to realise that your post, Entertainer, didn't relate to mine but was a response to another post that -- I, er, think -- was a response to another one. Possibly.

Anyway. I know the traditional Lib has been traditionally Left and so a marriage of the like-minded is to be expected in ordinary circumstances.

But as you and everyone on here knows, these aren't ordinary circumstances. Nor, does it seem, are there ordinary politics: Nick Clegg chose to emphasise the outcome of the democratic process, not lament the defeat of another party of (arguably) kindred spirit.

As it's impossible, and unreasonable, to set politics aside from a thread such as this -- seeing as how politics has played so significant a role in the current economic mess -- it's nevertheless going to be the case that every MSEr has his / her own view. Regardless of whatever political flag they might currently salute.

Which means: I think your point was well-made. I also think any LibDem voter who believes the party should now stand aside and let a Tory minority government get on with it may have a good idea of how UK politics works but little if any idea of how global economics operates.

I admired Nick Clegg the other day for putting honesty before politics. I'll admire him even more if his next step is to put national interest above party interest. There's unlikely to be a short-term dividend for the LibDems. But there will be for the country -- and in the longer term, the LibDems will benefit from that, too.

*PS: just to recap: a coalition with Labour and a bunch of nationalist parties would not only make a nonsense of the May 6th election. It would also be utter lunacy.

But huge fun though don't you agree. And the smaller parties WILL agree to it, they want PR as well. There will be an onslaught from the press but short of riots on the street, what can they do? We could even get some more of the spin that we had from all those Labour ministers on election night that this would lead to strong government and a decisive political settlement in the form of electoral reform, to try to appease the markets. Clegg can easily appear to be honest John by giving the winning party first refusal but knowing full well that they will fail when they hit the red line of PR.

The thing is, they only need 51% in favour in a referendum and, "that's a bingo", PR is in the bag. Forever. It's tempting.

Entertainer

tomterm8 wrote: »

Er, the Tory's had a 24 point lead in the poll couple of months before the election. I expected them to win with a majority of more than 100. Most commentators did too.

Lib dems is an odd one. They increased their share of the vote a little, lost some seats, and gained the power to chose who will be the next prime minister. We have a really odd system.... So, they kind of won, even though the electorate didn't like them at all.

No they didn't, their average lead was 7% two months before the election, exactly where they ended up.

Conrad

ninky wrote: »

fabrication welding. 7am - 5pm everyday in a workshop. fumes, dirt, noise, heat, physically demanding. been to hospital more than once this year to have small fragments of metal removed from eyes that the goggles / mask failed to stop.

I'd rather do that than have to knock on doors tbh!
In my experience we always tend to underestimate one anothers jobs and stress involved.