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

Really2

mitchaa wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now.

Tories and lib dems now in fresh talks. NC is taking the michael.

I don't think labour can get agreement with it's own MP's so any coalition is futile as any majority they could possibly get could be broken within.

I am now a bit more chilled, as I think people are now realising their is only one coalition that could provide a strong government.

moggylover

Really2 wrote: »

FTSE down over 2% today can't see any other reason for it other than the election as data out today has been positive.

So from my point of view on this I want a stable government for the economy more than anything else.

FTSE plays those sort of games all the time;) Someones wife said no last night: it fluctuates:rotfl:

There have been good figures (much better than expected) on industrial output today I believe, and realities like this should have far more affect on the FTSE than which Government gets in, unless they are only waiting for one that will show them more favouritism before they perform their best;)

I also want a stable Government for the economy more than anything else, but I don't want a double-dip recession either;)

julieq

moggylover wrote: »

What it really does mean though is that they couldn't produce a pair of trainers for £2.00 using children and slave labour in Vietnam, and bring 'em over here to flog for £130.00;)

It was never that the product could not be produced economically in this Country, but that by exploiting people with no ability to negotiate they could such not only our own economy dry, but also those of other nations, whilst standing firmly on the necks of the workers in this country and forcing wages down at the same time;):(

For me, that is why those that vote Tory cannot ever represent any kind of MORAL anything:o

So can you explain what has been done between 1997 and 2010 to stop this sort of exploitation by the UK Government?

The explosion in globalisation and outsourcing has taken place under the Labour watch. It has frankly nothing to do with politics, it comes from pressure from pension funds for return on investment in an internet age where price erosion is accelerating. It comes, in short, from the desire of you and I for a comfortable requirement without having to do anything specifically risky with our money.

There's an entire left leaning mythology about the Tories, which seems to start with the idea that the golden age of 1970s socialistic utopia was arrested by the fraudulent election of Margaret Thatcher who then proceeded to destroy the country. Not true: we were a basket case, she fixed a lot of the underlying problems, then got above herself and became extremely unpopular with those who suddenly were asked to pay via poll tax about a third of what they currently have to pay for council services after 13 years of inflation busting increases under Labour.

moggylover

mitchaa wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now.

Tories and lib dems now in fresh talks. NC is taking the michael.

Would you REALLY want any of them to be so cavalier as to NOT discuss everything that needs to be discussed in order to give us the most stable answer we can get? (I need rollyeyes here)

mitchaa

moggylover wrote: »

Would you REALLY want any of them to be so cavalier as to NOT discuss everything that needs to be discussed in order to give us the most stable answer we can get? (I need rollyeyes here)

From Tory to Labour and then back to Tory?

No, I would have stood by my guns and stuck to what I said in the 1st place. It's like a merry go round at the moment and it's not doing NC any favours. The markets are under strain and this needs resolving asap.

Kohoutek

BBC reporting via Labour source that Ed Balls pushed the LDs too hard, leading them back to the Tories.

abaxas

Kohoutek wrote: »

BBC reporting via Labour source that Ed Balls pushed the LDs too hard, leading them back to the Tories.

My god!

Who would put that numptie anywhere near any discussion. Unless Labour didnt want th pact at all.

Kohoutek

abaxas wrote: »

My god!

Who would put that numptie anywhere near any discussion. Unless Labour didnt want th pact at all.

I think he's planning on running for the leadership...would be pretty suicidal for Labour I think, he's unpopular enough that he struggled to win his own constituency.

Somerset

moggylover wrote: »

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"

The clear majority I was referring to was the 16,346,362 (that's over sixteen million people) who didn't vote because there was nobody they wanted/trusted/believed. The argument goes that you get the government you vote for (or don't) - evidently 16,346,362 don't believe that - you get what self-serving politicians give you.

1/3rd of the population may have voted for your party

That's rather presumptive - I don't have a party. I voted Conservative this time, I've voted Labour in the past. I don't do partisan politics. Most administrations run out of vision/idea's.

The "moral majority" that you are trying to suggest doesn't exist in any way, shape or form

A moral majority does exist. I assume you've misunderstood my point. The moral majority of 16 million have totally 'switched off' because they don't believe any of them.

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

In isolation this statement is true. But it's equally true about all of the parties .......the overwhelming majority is against < name the party >
If your point is by amalgamating the anti-conservative votes you get a true majority ..............we arrive at a Labour - Lib Dem - Democratic Unionist Party - Scottish National Party - Sinn Fein - Plaid Cymru - Social Democratic & Labour Party - Green - Alliance Party - Other - alliance.

In theory that will be majority consensus. But then if they all thought the same or had the same policies - they wouldn't be called different names would they ? They all have different 'wants' and effective governance grinds to a halt because you can't constantly horse-trade conflicting needs.

For the first time ever, I actually considered not voting at all this time. But maybe I'm programmed to. I think this mess is switching even more people off than ever ( add to those 16 million ). Whatever cobbled together deal is finially done by whoever cedes sufficient ground, that party's voters will feel betrayed. Even many of the damn party activists and politicians are saying ''this isn't what we signed up for''. I repeat, it's a shambles.

Really2

Labour MPs opposed to proportional representation are meeting this afternoon to discuss their strategy - it's not looking good for a Labour-LibDem deal,

Descent in the ranks, any Labour deal is dead as any seats they may get from a deal they may lose within their own party.