Lib Dems sell out

Wookster

Thrugelmir wrote: »

We could look back on the age of New Labour's "no more boom and bust" with more cynisim.

"No rise in income tax". - we'll just increase NIC instead so "we" haven't actually gone back on our election pledge.

Same old politics....... Different faces.

And actually we are still running a HUGE deficit.

I'm sure these things will happen but getting control of the deficit must be top priority.

tomterm8

At the end of the day, the lib dems got less than 25% of the share of the vote, and around 10% of the seats in the house of commons. Anyone who thinks that they can get all their policies through, or even a majority, probably don't get the point of democracy.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Wookster wrote: »

And actually we are still running a HUGE deficit.

I'm sure these things will happen but getting control of the deficit must be top priority.

Deficit for 5 years............

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Does anyone care except those interested in scoring political points....... ?

I think LibDem voters were expecting some integrity, having said that I think they have provided a pretty good anchor on Georgie Porgie and his slasher budget.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

chucky wrote: »

if you hadn't noticed, Mr 1984s post had nothing at all to with Labour - it has a lot to do with the Lib Dems backtracking and making themselves look a bit foolish.

That is because Labour are the past.

Well, a large number are going to defect from the Lib Dems back to Labour after this one...

the_flying_pig

tomterm8 wrote: »

At the end of the day, the lib dems got less than 25% of the share of the vote, and around 10% of the seats in the house of commons. Anyone who thinks that they can get all their policies through, or even a majority, probably don't get the point of democracy.

agreed.

the tories would much rather not have increased CGT, or increased the zero tax threshold. they might well have preferred not to leave benefits more or less untouched. that they did all these things is a clear sign of reasonably major concessions to the libdems, befitting the fact that this is a coalition.

but the budget overall looks a fair bit more like a tory one than a libdem one, why wouldn't it?

chewmylegoff

you can look at this two ways.

(i) the lib dems have sold out and are now supporting things they opposed during their election campaign. this is terrible. they are charlatans.

(ii) the lib dems through coalition government have delivered at least some of the things that promised to do (e.g. personal allowance, rise in CGT). these things may have been watered down but it is better than getting nothing. in order to get these things they have had to agree to things they previously opposed.

so by virtue of being inside the coalition at least some lib dem policies have been implemented (albeit in a watered down form).

is this preferable to lib dem voters than no lib dem policies being implemented? i'm not a lib dem, but to my mind something is better than nothing.

Wookster

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Deficit for 5 years............

You have Labour to thank for that.

Had there not been such an enormous structural deficit, there would be more latitude for things like a £10k tax allowance.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Wookster wrote: »

You have Labour to thank for that.

Had there not been such an enormous structural deficit, there would be more latitude for things like a £10k tax allowance.

I choose to thank Nick Clegg & him selling his soul.

Thanks anyway....

MobileSaver

chucky wrote: »

probably not but it's not a good sign for a newly elected political party to have to back track on it's election promises so quickly into office... all a bit sad that they've sold themselves out for a bit of power after only 6 weeks...

They didn't win the election though so rather impossible for them to deliver what they promised in their manifesto.

I'm a bit confused by some of the posts on here, it doesn't take a genius to work out there would be compromises in a coalition government does it? :huh: