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

chucky

silvercar wrote: »

Don't the benefit reliant, labour voting chav's cling together on council estates?

i would be very suprised if this very broad brush generalisation of a group of people you describe even voted or cared about the election.

PhylPho

julieq wrote: »

There is an opportunistic position here and there is a principled position. The interests of the Liberals and in fact all of us who want a moderately centre left government - which includes myself and I suspect a very high proportion of Conservative voters, i.e. measured social provision and health care backed by some degree of personal responsibility, without excessive state interference in our daily lives - would in fact be better served by working with the largest party, influencing its actions, towards the actions needed to stablise the economy.

Second time I've quoted one of your posts, but justified.

I voted LibDem this time around.

And I agree with every word you said above, regardless of whatever political party you favoured in the GE.

moggylover

StevieJ wrote: »

That could be the situation in a Rainbow alliance with the SNP/Plaid tail wagging the dog.

I agree, and it is not perfect. However, the primary objective of any democracy should be to have a government which most clearly represents the wishes of the very largest majority of people (and I mean people, not seats;)).

No single party can do this at this time, but the majority of those "others" all have distinctly socialist leanings which would mesh better with each other than they would with the Tories.

It isn't perfect. Truthfully, only a two party system would give us really clear results, but I don't feel that is democratic either.

I've spent lots of years trying to come up with a really fair system myself (and I don't think PR is totally the way to go because it still doesn't make it a one man one vote Government) but it isn't simple unless we can persuade the politicians of the future that they need to be better prepared to power share:D

ninky_2

moggylover wrote: »

They may be boneheads lost, but in general I think it is right to think that they are more likely to be socialists who have become disenchanted with the bad effect that large numbers of immigrants (especially those at the low-skilled end) have on wages and jobs for British people.

I don't like their views: but I can understand where they are coming from.

but of course the far bigger 'immigration' issue is global corporations and international banks. jobs and tax revenue have been lost overseas for a long time now. but no one thinks of that as they shop in tesco or call their mobile phone support team.

barriers have come down for markets. but when the labour market tries to shift itself to a better position people complain.

marklv

silvercar wrote: »

Don't the benefit reliant, labour voting chav's cling together on council estates?

Loads of chavs vote Tory - look at Basildon and other parts of Essex for instance. Labour is much more of a middle class party now.

ninky_2

the more 'democratic' you go, the less decisive the government will be. that's obvious as people don't agree so to represent them all you have to have coalitions. otherwise you have tyranny by the minority.

if you want really clear government you go for dictatorship or monarchy.

Really2

marklv wrote: »

Labour is much more of a middle class party now.

The irony of the statement. Perhaps they may want to look at what they stood for and why they are where they are now.

moggylover

Somerset wrote: »

I think there's one clear winner - overwhelmingly the majority vote - and with the current chaos I might join them.

Party - Seats - Vote

Conservative 306 10,706,647
[SIZE=+0]Labour 258 8,604,358 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Liberal Democrat 57 6,827,938 [/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
Democratic Unionist Party 8 168,216
Scottish National Party 6 491,386
Sinn Fein 5 171,942
Plaid Cymru 3 165,394
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3 110,970
Green 1 285,616
Alliance Party 1 42,762
UK Independence Party 0 917,832
British National Party 0 563,743
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force 0 102,361 English Democrats 0 64,826
Respect-Unity Coalition 0 33,251
Traditional Unionist Voice 0 26,300
Christian Party 0 18,623
Independent Community and Health Concern 0 16,150
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 0 12,275
Scottish Socialist Party 0 3,157
Others 1 319,891
Eligible to vote but did not 0 16,346,362
Turnout 29,653,638
Total eligible to vote 46,000,000

[/SIZE]

I am not at all certain when the maths changed and 1/3 (or a verylittle over a third) of the population became a "clear majority", but under our current system the Tories are only capable of a minority government which would find it very hard to govern:D

1/3rd of the population may have voted for your party, but as I have already painstakingly explained that leaves a VAST majority of 64% who have voted AGAINST you in one way or another.

The "moral majority" that you are trying to suggest doesn't exist in any way, shape or form which is why the horse trading is going on;)

The only "overwhelming" majority is AGAINST the Tories, and they really don't like admitting it:D

Personally, I'd rather they either went it alone: they wouldn't last long:D Or that they did the right thing and got rid of the dreadful Ozzy Insincerity and gained a coallition by giving the chancellors job to Vince Cable;):D

Mr Camerons backside should be getting VERY sore by now:D The only way he can prop up HIS minority is with help: same as everyone else:D

Really2

moggylover wrote: »

1/3rd of the population may have voted for your party, but as I have already painstakingly explained that leaves a VAST majority of 64% who have voted AGAINST you in one way or another.

The "moral majority" that you are trying to suggest doesn't exist in any way, shape or form which is why the horse trading is going on;)

The only "overwhelming" majority is AGAINST the Tories, and they really don't like admitting it:D

From my recollection you vote for the party you want in power not the one you don't want so what you are saying is completely wrong.

So there is no "majority" against anyone all the figures show you is who got the most votes, not who voted against anyone.;)

moggylover

ninky wrote: »

but of course the far bigger 'immigration' issue is global corporations and international banks. jobs and tax revenue have been lost overseas for a long time now. but no one thinks of that as they shop in tesco or call their mobile phone support team.

barriers have come down for markets. but when the labour market tries to shift itself to a better position people complain.

I agree entirely.

So far it has only been in the interests of the rich, the richer and the disgustingly rich and for the labour market it has been a nightmare.

This does need addressing, but I am not sure that any of our parties are strong enough to do so. My own kind of non-racist belief is that we need to have more respect for ALL of the workers across the World, and a much more level playing field for them to compete in before we can afford "open markets", but there would be less money in it then;)