lib are talking to labour please tell me it's not so

kennyboy66_2

Really2 wrote: »

Not true, the Tory party have a majority in England. They only don't have a majority overall because some loons let other country's have their own parliaments but can still vote on ours even though we can't vote on theirs.

England overwhelmingly back the conservatives at this election. That is not a fact you can hide from.

Last time I looked we still lived in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Hope this helps.

bioboybill

Kenny, surely you can see the sense of dropping the bedrock of Conservative beliefs (the union of GB) when the Scots won't vote for them?;):D

FWIW I would prefer to see the Tories try to run a minority government or get into bed with the Lib Dems. The only advantage I can see to Labour staying in government with the Lib Dems is the way it would wind up the rabid, seething Tories on here.

In the long run it would be better for the Labour Party to allow the people of this country to see Cameron and the Conservatives for what they are. In fact I can see the right wing of the Tories ripping them apart if they have to work with the Lib Dems. Great stuff.

StevieJ

bioboybill wrote: »

Kenny, surely you can see the sense of dropping the bedrock of Conservative beliefs (the union of GB) when the Scots won't vote for them?;):D

FWIW I would prefer to see the Tories try to run a minority government or get into bed with the Lib Dems. The only advantage I can see to Labour staying in government with the Lib Dems is the way it would wind up the rabid, seething Tories on here.

In the long run it would be better for the Labour Party to allow the people of this country to see Cameron and the Conservatives for what they are. In fact I can see the right wing of the Tories ripping them apart if they have to work with the Lib Dems. Great stuff.

But the fusion with LibDems may make their policies seem half decent to the public

Really2

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Last time I looked we still lived in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Hope this helps.

We do, so why don't we all have the same voting rights on all our parliaments?

University fees is a good one to look at, hope that helps.

bioboybill

StevieJ wrote: »

But the fusion with LibDems may make their policies seem half decent to the public

If that's the case then fine. Despite being a Labour supporter I'm happy if a government of any persuasion does right by the people.

bioboybill

Really2 wrote: »

We do, so why don't we all have the same voting rights on all our parliaments?

University fees is a good one to look at, hope that helps.

Obviously you do have a good point there.

I do hope the Conservatives don't push ahead with their plans to double tuition fees. It's killing me putting my son through University as it is.

PhylPho

julieq wrote: »

To be honest I wouldn't work with Clegg now under any circumstances. He started out with a great deal of kudos and moral authority, he did the right thing by talking to the largest party and stressing the key to the choice was the national interest rather than narrow partisan interests. But it looks like that was simply a negotiating position. He talks a good game, but he behaves like a typically self serving double dealing politician.. . . So quite what game he thinks he is playing now is beyond me. It is tactically and philosophically inept.

Maybe time for a Michael Winner moment, Julie? (As per his irritating car insurance ad.)

Because unless you *know* the outcome of all the current to-ing and fro-ing, it seems to me you're being just a bit premature here: Clegg is the leader of a political party that has always -- but always -- leaned Left, not Right. He wouldn't last five minutes if he was to be seen to dally with Cameron but deny Labour.

As to the outcome, well. . .

A coalition formed principally by two parties which between 'em didn't get as many votes as the party not in the coalition ain't exactly most people's idea of democracy.

A coalition formed of those two parties plus a desperate rag-bag of nationalist interests who already get more than they deserve isn't so much democratic as deranged.

Labour was chucked out because of its track record. The Tories weren't handed the key to Number 10 outright because of their track record. The LibDems were thus pitched into a position they have long sought: a chance, at last, to be centre-stage.

How Clegg / the LibDems perform centre stage now really is going to determine if national interest gets put before party interest -- because it's pretty darn certain the markets are going to be hugely unimpressed with a "progressive rainbow coalition" (oh ye Gods) the principal partner of which has not only been discredited but which still, as far as I'm aware, clings to the notion that doing nothing for 12 months is A Good Idea.

The LibDems now have the chance to be praised or reviled. The former will translate into longterm benefit, the latter into a long dark night of permanent extinction. Hopefully, Clegg is bright enough to understand that.

As to your other point about a referendum on A/V alone, I absolutely agree. A referendum on electoral reform which turns out to be no more than a yes / no on a single option is no kind of referendum at all.

The LibDems are going to have to tread very, very carefully today.

If Cameron wants to go for a minority administration, leading to an inevitable second general Election, then money really will play a huge part: Labour's election war chest is pretty theadbare, the LibDems' damn near empty. Unable to fight another campaign so soon, the LibDems could wind up with less than they have now. . . whilst the Tories get the clear mandate to run the kind of Rightwing state so many of us here fear. . .

abaxas

bioboybill wrote: »

If that's the case then fine. Despite being a Labour supporter I'm happy if a government of any persuasion does right by the people.

Since when has a labour goverment ever 'done right by the people'?

Is saddling the 'people' with a record debt that someone else has to sort out 'right for the people'?

Stop looking at the small picture, open your eyes and view it all.

chucky

abaxas wrote: »

Since when has a labour goverment ever 'done right by the people'?

Is saddling the 'people' with a record debt that someone else has to sort out 'right for the people'?

Stop looking at the small picture, open your eyes and view it all.

you are right, you do need to stop squinting and open your eyes.
you're not seeing the full picture with your rabid anti-Labour narrow view.

Labour is not the only political party that has fooked up whilst being in power.

the teflon knights in shining armour the tories have fooked up a few times too.

Sir_Humphrey

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

YouGov’s poll for the Sun this morning asked people their preference on the coalition deal. 20% wanted the Conservatives to govern as a minority, 33% wanted a pact or coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats (giving a total of 53% wanting a Conservative led government), 39% of respondents backed the Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, etc rainbow coalition.
YouGov also asked whether people would prefer FPTP or a proportional system. 38% backed FPTP, 47% proportional representation – this was a repeat of a question YouGov asked a week or so before the general election, and there has not been any significant change in opinion.

So the most popular option is a rainbow coalition, but most voters want the Tories to be in some sort of government. And yet another opinion poll is in favour of PR.