We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Govt Defeated-Cons Losing Election More Likely
Comments
-
Another defeat for the Cons! Looks bad for Cameron now, as if he's running scared of the Lib Dems - FOUR postponements of the Marriage Tax promise! He obviously can't deliver on his promises.... when that happens towards the end of a coalition and things start to look that shaky... well... say no more! Are we really mid-term?0
-
DecentLivingWage wrote: »Another defeat for the Cons! Looks bad for Cameron now, as if he's running scared of the Lib Dems - FOUR postponements of the Marriage Tax promise! He obviously can't deliver on his promises.... when that happens towards the end of a coalition and things start to look that shaky... well... say no more! Are we really mid-term?
You can't count, you mock victims of child abuse and you don't know the difference between debt and deficit.
You're less than half way through the period this Government is meant to last.
The marriage tax break was meant to come in at some point during the Parliament not at the first possible opportunity. Hopefully posters here have worked out you're a liar as well as an idiot. If not this is another nail in the coffin of your 'credibility'.0 -
So why did the Tories vote down Lords reform when they must have known the Libs would then vote down this Legislation??
If you actually read the Coalition Agreement, the clause in question was for the Government to hold a referendum on the introductionof AV, and introduce a working committee to investigate ways of reforming the Lords.
The AV referendum was held and susequently lost by a significant margin. The Committee was introduced and published its findings. In return, the Cons would introduce and implement the recommendations from the INDEPENDENT Boundry Commission. The actual vote in the Lords was a "Brucey Bonus"; there was NOTHING in the coalition agreement stating that the Conservatives HAD to support or vote for the reform.
The Conservatives real mistake was for one small second believing that Clegg and his bunch of political shysters were in any way honourable or principled people who would stick to a (written!) agreement.
The Lib Dems got every last aspect of what they signed up for. Then voted down the boundry bill out of spite and childish petulance.
Heaven forbid it would be a vote winner to CUT the number of MPs by 50, saving over £13MILLION a year....or re-instating the every vote is equal principle that has been stretched and warped since the pioneering Reform Act that got rid of the Rotten Boroughs back in 1832.
To Tancred and the others who have said it would have been "unfair", well, how can you honestly justify the "fairness" of a seat in the south east having over 100,000 voters whilst a seat in mid Wales has just 40,000. WHY should the vote of the man in Wales be worth more than the chap in the south east (or in the North of England where it is equally applicable to Labour heavy cities.....).
The real scandal is why the BBC and 'right-on' media are not up in arms about this - if it was the other way round and it was the Tories trying to keep an inbuilt 20-seat head start (or 7% vote margin) before a vote has even been cast, they would be branded as dictatorial Fascist quasi Nazi b*$%&rds?!
Regards,
D_S0 -
What proof/evidence have you that the LD "Moved the goalposts", if so its a very well kept secret, the excuse by NC is that it was HOL reform that it hinged on.That appears to be a massive strategic blunder by the Tories. It's pretty clear the deal was that the Libs would get a vote on AV in return for the Tories gerrymandering. Then when the Libs got a good kicking in the AV vote they moved the goalposts & are now claiming the deal was in return for Lords reform.
Very foolish of the Tories to allow the vote on AV and block the Lords reform when there was still plenty of time for the Libs to screw them over on boundary changes.0 -
PR was the whole point of the LibDems -- that's how policy-bankrupt they are. When it got kicked back big time, and then the the PR election of the HOL scheme too, the sandal-wearing, lentil chewing pillocks had to have some sort of revenge.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Devon_Sailor wrote: »
To Tancred and the others who have said it would have been "unfair", well, how can you honestly justify the "fairness" of a seat in the south east having over 100,000 voters whilst a seat in mid Wales has just 40,000. WHY should the vote of the man in Wales be worth more than the chap in the south east (or in the North of England where it is equally applicable to Labour heavy cities.....).
The real scandal is why the BBC and 'right-on' media are not up in arms about this - if it was the other way round and it was the Tories trying to keep an inbuilt 20-seat head start (or 7% vote margin) before a vote has even been cast, they would be branded as dictatorial Fascist quasi Nazi b*$%&rds?!
Regards,
D_S
Before you start throwing fascist labels about the place, do explain why this fair minded Tory Government ordered the Boundary Commission:
(1) There shall be two constituencies in the Isle of Wight.
That is why proscribe two constituencies of under 55000 in place of one traditionally Tory seat. Rank hypocricy in my opinion.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Before you start throwing fascist labels about the place, do explain why this fair minded Tory Government ordered the Boundary Commission:
That is why proscribe two constituencies of under 55000 in place of one traditionally Tory seat. Rank hypocricy in my opinion.
It's because the IOW lobbied not to have itself split so that part was lumped in with south Hampshire. Poor decision though.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »It's because the IOW lobbied not to have itself split so that part was lumped in with south Hampshire. Poor decision though.
I agree it was a poor decision, but the Government did decree the IOW would have two small constituencies rather than one which undermines their argument about fairness.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
I agree it was a poor decision, but the Government did decree the IOW would have two small constituencies rather than one which undermines their argument about fairness.
It does undermine it. But then with the present set up there are many examples of constituencies with widely varying electorates which is also unfair on many electors.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Ha ha I see the coalition marriage is now creaking at the seams...won't be long now before we have a proper Labour Govmt back. None of that right wing Blair nonsense either!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards