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

StevieJ

StevieJ wrote: »

I agree, deal with Cameron and new election in the autumn when they fall out :eek:
No pot of gold for the other option

Nick Clegg and David Cameron met again in private on Tuesday morning - as a senior Lib Dem told the BBC the Tory offer was the "only deal in town".

Betfair odds on Cameron also shrunk from 1.45 to 1.12 looks to be all over bar the shouting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8674103.stm

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

Agree, but in the xfactor world we live in why shouldn't the party with the most votes govern?

I would have no problem with it as in the end of the day it would be what the most people wanted when they voted. If they did not really want one party to come in they could then look to vote against a party.

We can't have this kind of thing going on after the next election. Some business leaders rightly pointed out what is best for the economy has now seem to have gone out of the window.

The truth is not everyones views can be accounted for, so that is why voting for a party that is closest to yours is best.
But if another party beats your party, your party should not have a case to govern IMHO.

Because most votes does not equal represents the majority.

I agree with moggylover regarding those who don't vote - they should be fined each & every time they begin to complain about anything at all up until the next election.

don't know the answer. The point I'm highlighting is that most votes does not equal most popular. Therefore the party with the most votes is not representative of the majority of the population.

The point made by business leaders can go jump imo. They are only interested in themselves, not us as a nation.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Because most votes does not equal represents the majority.

I agree with moggylover regarding those who don't vote - they should be fined each & every time they begin to complain about anything at all up until the next election.

don't know the answer. The point I'm highlighting is that most votes does not equal most popular. Therefore the party with the most votes is not representative of the majority of the population.

The point made by business leaders can go jump imo. They are only interested in themselves, not us as a nation.

I don't think we can ever represent a majority TBH. (just that personally I have no problem with the largest party forming government)

and agree on non voters.

But TBF I think Business have a point, we need a stable government, and in reality that does not matter who it is. But hopefully that will be sorted today.

moggylover

Somerset wrote: »

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.



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.



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.



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.

I'm sorry:D I did misunderstand the majority you were on about, and I agree with much of what you say.

Under our current system, and since I detest everything that Con policies have ever stood for, I'm afraid I shall remain partisan:o

However, as I stated earlier, what I think the electorate who COULD be bothered to vote actually indicated is that we are moving into times when a power sharing (and far more democratic) kind of Government is required, and that this is why there is no clear working majority for anyone.

I often feel that I can't be bothered to vote around here. It is a two hourse race between the Lib. Dems and Plaid here and any other vote is wasted. However, like you, I usually end up going and voting (this time Lib Dem freely since their manifesto was, if anything, more socialist than the rather middle of the road Labour one;)) because at least that way I feel I have the right to complain if they do not get it right:rotfl::rotfl:

The VERY right path where the parliament is hung, would be for the two parties who come first and second to attempt to work together since this actually does represent a very large proportion of the voting public.

However, if that were to happen then I don't think we would need a Guy Fawkes, the hot air produced alone would be enough to take the roof off:D

StevieJ

julieq wrote: »

.

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.

How come the younger generation are complaining about the older generation having all the advantages if it was rubbish in the 70's and a fantastic new world order now. I just wondered

moggylover

mitchaa wrote: »

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.

None of them are truthfully in a position to stick to their guns! No-one has a clear enough workable majority to do so and that includes the Tories should they form a minority Government.

The markets are not truly under strain (despite the hype) and as I said earlier, the Shylocks had their one vote and need to just get on with their jobs and stop attempting to meddle in the democratic process (yet more) by throwing their toys from their prams;)

StevieJ

moggylover wrote: »

None of them are truthfully in a position to stick to their guns! No-one has a clear enough workable majority to do so and that includes the Tories should they form a minority Government.

The markets are not truly under strain (despite the hype) and as I said earlier, the Shylocks had their one vote and need to just get on with their jobs and stop attempting to meddle in the democratic process (yet more) by throwing their toys from their prams

They don't meddle they react

moggylover

Really2 wrote: »

I don't think we can ever represent a majority TBH. (just that personally I have no problem with the largest party forming government)

and agree on non voters.

But TBF I think Business have a point, we need a stable government, and in reality that does not matter who it is. But hopefully that will be sorted today.

I don't think that I personally have a major problem with that either: however, they need a WORKING majority to do that in a stable fashion and no-one has that. Thus, the scrabble:D

moggylover

StevieJ wrote: »

They don't meddle they react

And my coronation takes place next week;):D

Really2

moggylover wrote: »

I don't think that I personally have a major problem with that either: however, they need a WORKING majority to do that in a stable fashion and no-one has that. Thus, the scrabble:D

I agree, but if they reformed it to majority rule (in terms of highest number of votes received) to stop this happening again I would not argue against TBH.