Who will win the UK election ?

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

Compromises, whether they be miserable or otherwise, are what you get with coalitions. There is no a priori reason why one should expect that the UK electorate's preferences will be in any way consistent.

That was no compromise.

A compromise would have been to keep the student fees at £3,000, that way neither got their desires.
As it was, lib dems, bent over and accepted what the Cons wanted

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That was no compromise.

A compromise would have been to keep the student fees at £3,000, that way neither got their desires.
As it was, lib dems, bent over and accepted what the Cons wanted

compromise can mean giving way on one issue and getting ones way on another

anyway the outcome was very welcome especially compared to the totally unfair and unequal system in Scotland where rich parents get hand outs of over 200,000

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That was no compromise.

A compromise would have been to keep the student fees at £3,000, that way neither got their desires.
As it was, lib dems, bent over and accepted what the Cons wanted

The nature of compromises is that sometimes you completely conceed on one issue, in order to get something else that you want on another.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the LD policy on tution fees was never a 'serious' policy. It was a typical third party protest policy designed to get some votes in.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

Of course. When am I ever wrong?:rotfl:



Well I voted 'no'. I ain't having that carp foisted on me thank you very much.

.

No it'll be a Sturgeon and a Salmond;)

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

The nature of compromises is that sometimes you completely conceed on one issue, in order to get something else that you want on another.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the LD policy on tution fees was never a 'serious' policy. It was a typical third party protest policy designed to get some votes in.

Do you not have an issue with designing a manifesto to "get some votes in", which incidentally was a huge part of their manifesto but totally capitulate on it when you get the opportunity to put it in place.

No wonder the polls are showing down from circa 23% of the vote to 7.2% of the vote

Conrad

If Labour wins, I'm going all out to reduce my taxes. Why should I work and make sacrifice so as masses of others that could work do not have to?


People from my own family have faced huge hardship in the past with regard to health but refused to claim bennies as for them this amounted to depriving others. This stoic can-do quality is absent from the vast self pitying welfare sponging tribe. Last night on The Island as ever one member of the 'team' decided collecting firewood was too much effort and decided to chill out while the others toiled. This is a classic microcosm of society at large.


My sales manager mate still works despite having to poo every 30 mins. He could easily reel off a dozen reasons why he cannot work, but his attitude keeps him working and paying tax. Meanwhile tenants through my office with a bad knee that have never worked and talk of their upcoming '48 hour Playstation party'

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Do you not have an issue with designing a manifesto to "get some votes in", which incidentally was a huge part of their manifesto but totally capitulate on it when you get the opportunity to put it in place.

No wonder the polls are showing down from circa 23% of the vote to 7.2% of the vote

of course its a bad thing to make up rubbish to get votes in.

It's why many criticise the SNP for the nonsense they write about fairness and reducing inquality whilst giving massive handouts to rich parent of Uni students and activity pursuing further unfairness in the distribution of UK funds.
Sadly their voters have reduced moral sensibilities after suffering years of victim mentality and supporting greedy self interest.

Moby

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Do you not have an issue with designing a manifesto to "get some votes in", which incidentally was a huge part of their manifesto but totally capitulate on it when you get the opportunity to put it in place.

No wonder the polls are showing down from circa 23% of the vote to 7.2% of the vote

Of course every party is at it to 'get some votes in' and it's why the tories are such great survivors in the political 'game' because they are light on values and principles and will do what it takes for power. I think the game is up for Cameron. Whatever the result he doesn't seem to me to up for it anymore. He's had a relatively easy ride in the last 5 years. Clegg has been a fellow traveller and they have been able to work together. He knows it will be closer this time and if he wins, it will be by a smaller margin and he'll have to do deals and 'compromise'. that's why I think he'll 'bow out' either immediately if he doesn't get the biggest no. of seats or within a year if he does win but it's 'messy'. I listened to him getting pumelled by young people on Radio 1 yesterday and I thought he must really hate this. There was no deference being shown to him and he struggled!

One issue in relation to this is How can a tory manifesto succeed in the new reality? It will surely be watered down by those Cameron has to deal with ie weakened LibD's, DUP, (pork barrel politics), UKIP, (Europe). The LibD have already said they will not accept the future cuts!

Labour however may not have to deal with anyone. The other Parties they would potential have to deal with are all to the left of them or v similar, (LibD). They could force a vote of confidence on a budget, (only they had decided on) in the HoC and who from SNP, Plaid, Greens, SDLP is going to vote against it? Even a vote on trident would get the tories on side to make up for the SNP etc voting the other way? Does this make sense? I realise of course ultimately it's a number game but presently the polls show no overall majority and even with the largest no. of seats the tories will have less wriggle room?

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Of course every party is at it to 'get some votes in' and it's why the tories are such great survivors in the political 'game' because they are light on values and principles and will do what it takes for power. I think the game is up for Cameron. Whatever the result he doesn't seem to me to up for it anymore. He's had a relatively easy ride in the last 5 years. Clegg has been a fellow traveller and they have been able to work together. He knows it will be closer this time and if he wins, it will be by a smaller margin and he'll have to do deals and 'compromise'. that's why I think he'll 'bow out' either immediately if he doesn't get the biggest no. of seats or within a year if he does win but it's 'messy'. I listened to him getting pumelled by young people on Radio 1 yesterday and I thought he must really hate this. There was no deference being shown to him and he struggled!

One issue in relation to this is How can a tory manifesto succeed in the new reality? It will surely be watered down by those Cameron has to deal with ie weakened LibD's, DUP, (pork barrel politics), UKIP, (Europe). The LibD have already said they will not accept the future cuts!

Labour however may not have to deal with anyone. The other Parties they would potential have to deal with are all to the left of them or v similar, (LibD). They could force a vote of confidence on a budget, (only they had decided on) in the HoC and who from SNP, Plaid, Greens, SDLP is going to vote against it? Even a vote on trident would get the tories on side to make up for the SNP etc voting the other way? Does this make sense? I realise of course ultimately it's a number game but presently the polls show no overall majority and even with the largest no. of seats the tories will have less wriggle room?

lovely idea, believing the solution to all issues is endless more handouts, supported by endless more borrowing, somewhat isn't pork barrel politics.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

of course its a bad thing to make up rubbish to get votes in.

It's why many criticise the SNP for the nonsense they write about fairness and reducing inquality whilst giving massive handouts to rich parent of Uni students and activity pursuing further unfairness in the distribution of UK funds.
Sadly their voters have reduced moral sensibilities after suffering years of victim mentality and supporting greedy self interest.

I see you have not changed.

Incidentally, I think that further education should be free to all based on ability not wealth for access.

This is far different from linking to benefits