Govt Defeated-Cons Losing Election More Likely

Thrugelmir

Moby wrote: »

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!

Coalitions may be well be around for a while.

Working very well. Shows can behave as grown ups.

Moby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Coalitions may be well be around for a while.

Working very well. Shows can behave as grown ups.

Good point but ....does our political system favour compromise...I mean PR was given short shrift....even though I voted for it!

GeorgeHowell

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Coalitions may be well be around for a while.

Working very well. Shows can behave as grown ups.

One would hope that if there is a Labour government it will be very left leaning, because that will then throw them into opposition for years to come. The New Labour con job was much more damaging to the country in the longer term

StevieJ

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

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 point being made by you would have more weight if all the Tory MPs had supported the boundary changes.

StevieJ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

One would hope that if there is a Labour government it will be very left leaning, because that will then throw them into opposition for years to come. The New Labour con job was much more damaging to the country in the longer term

True, they were just, a more or less facsimile of the Tory party

Fella

roddydogs wrote: »

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.

Why would the Tories have agreed a deal of boundary reform in return for HOL reform if they intended to oppose boundary reform?

Obviously Nick Clegg is going to lie about it, he's hardly going to say "yes we're a bunch of treacherous vengeful scumbags" is he?

Tancred

Fella wrote: »

The to 1% of earners already pay at least 25% of total income tax.

It's admirable that you want to pay more though (I'm assuming by your statement that you're one of the "better off" & volunteering to pay more yourself - not just someone spouting how someone else should pay for everything).

I'm not in the top 1% of earners, more like the top 20%. Should I pay more tax? Probably not, unless I get something else in return. One of the issues that isn't mentioned is the steady disappearance of defined benefit pension schemes in the private sector - this has had the equivalent effect of a 20-25% pay cut in real terms to most employees, and the government has not lifted a finger to stop this. I don't favour asking the hard pressed middle class to pay more, but the 'upper middle' has had it easy until now and they should certainly pay more.

GeorgeHowell

StevieJ wrote: »

True, they were just, a more or less facsimile of the Tory party

That's a complete myth that needs debunking. It is true that they, and Blair in particular, sucked up to big business for reasons best known to themselves. But here are things that happened under 13 years of New Labour which are completely un-Tory :- selling off gold reserves at a very low price, raiding private pension funds, unrestricted immigration, complete capitulation to the EU including giving up a chunk of the EU rebate for nothing in return, creating a totally inadequate regulation regime for the financial sector, dumbing down of state education, packing the NHS with bureaucrats and allowing it to become 'non-caring', perpetrating the human rights farce, allowing the welfare bill to spiral out of control, inflating the public sector to no benefit to the country, encouraging creeping political correctness, encouraging multiculturalism, creating the client state thus buying votes with taxpayers' money.

They were no Tories.

A._Badger

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

They were no Tories.

And neither is 'call me Dave'.

GeorgeHowell

A._Badger wrote: »

And neither is 'call me Dave'.

I think that's arguable too. Certainly he is trying to do something about a lot of the things I listed, to the extent that Nick -- I don't believe in private education but I can't afford for my own children not to have the privilege -- Clegg will let him.

The fact is that a lot of the old hard-core Tory policies are a dead-duck in modern Britain in terms of electability, such as :- complete halt to immigration, capital punishment, really swingeing welfare cuts, bring back grammar schools, immediate EU withdrawal.

I think a lot of Tory members and voters are measuring Dave against these, and without commenting on the merits or otherwise of such policies, it's not realistic. Many are defecting to UKIP because they think it offers a return to the old Toryism. All UKIP will ever be is a right wing pressure group.