The end of the coalition?

[martin84]

AJS- said:

A Labour government is what the country needs - bankruptcy, debt default, and the fantastic spectacle of a Labour government ]i]having[/i] to make big cuts to all their grandiose spending plans

Didn't that exact thing happen in the late 70s?

[Murph7355]

AJS- said:

..., as opposed the pitiful spectacle of a Con/Lib coalition not daring to.

Have said it before, but I still think it's our fault, the electorate, why they are unable to move.

Every time a cut is tabled we, stoked up by our beloved media, go up in arms about it as every self interest group comes out of the woodwork. We are no better than the Greeks we scoff at.

I actually find myself feeling sorry for the govt. which is very worrying.

Even if seemingly forced, I do not see Labour being any more able to make cuts than the current lot.

[chris watton]

Murph7355 said:

Have said it before, but I still think it's our fault, the electorate, why they are unable to move.

Every time a cut is tabled we, stoked up by our beloved media, go up in arms about it as every self interest group comes out of the woodwork. We are no better than the Greeks we scoff at.

I actually find myself feeling sorry for the govt. which is very worrying.

Even if seemingly forced, I do not see Labour being any more able to make cuts than the current lot.

This is the frustrating thing, I am sure that 'WE' (the majority?) don't get stoked up - it is the media /'fat cat' union bosses/self interest groups that make it 'seem' that the 'whole country' is up in arms.

[otolith]

Liberal Democrats putting narrow party political advantage ahead of a principled reform to the electoral system? Looks like a small sniff of power really does corrupt.

[andymadmak]

Derek Smith said:

andymadmak said:

Just lost a chunk of respect for the Lib Dems.

From your previous posts I have assumed you were not an avid LibDem suporter...... etc .

No I wasn't a supporter, but I did have some respect for them in that, by joining the coalition, they were trying to do the right thing for the country, as opposed to simply courting public popularity with undeliverable headline grabbing policies (such as their pre election promise on student loans) and shouting bad things at whichever government was inpower and having to make the tough choices post Gordon Brown.
If, as other posters have suggested, the boundary change deal was actually linked to the AV referendum (and not Lords reform) then the Lib Dems have sunk even lower than a snakes belly. The Conservatives kept their part of the deal - its hardly their fault that the country rejected AV!

[Derek Smith]

0000 said:

It says it in big letters at the top of the page?

Gotcha.

Certainly not at this time. There's no alternative, is there? I do not want Cameron, and I certainly don't want Milliband and Harman. As I said somewhere else, the fact that Johnson is seen as a viable alternative to Cameron shows the paucity of the tory's leadership potential.

If labour gets in then Harman will have massive influence. Now there's a thought.

[Elroy Blue]

Murph7355 said:

.

Every time a cut is tabled we, stoked up by our beloved media, go up in arms about it as every self interest group comes out of the woodwork. We are no better than the Greeks we scoff at.

I actually find myself feeling sorry for the govt. which is very worrying.

.

This 'Government' can't complain "there's no money left" when they continue to give away £14 billion in 'aid' and continue to throw away billions on bloody windmills and carbon capture.

The infrastructure of the country is being cut beyond the bone, while Cameron plays at being a Statesman. Frankly, currently it makes not a jot of difference who is in power. They are all utterly useless.

[AJS-]

martin84 said:

AJS- said:

A Labour government is what the country needs - bankruptcy, debt default, and the fantastic spectacle of a Labour government ]i]having[/i] to make big cuts to all their grandiose spending plans

Didn't that exact thing happen in the late 70s?

Yes, and it led to the 80s where Thatcher bulldozed great swathes of it, and did some of what we need again now. It also kept Labour out of power for 18 years, and IMO if not for the Tory wets would have destroyed Labour completely. Which would be a good thing.

Murph7355 said:

AJS- said:

..., as opposed the pitiful spectacle of a Con/Lib coalition not daring to.

Have said it before, but I still think it's our fault, the electorate, why they are unable to move.

Every time a cut is tabled we, stoked up by our beloved media, go up in arms about it as every self interest group comes out of the woodwork. We are no better than the Greeks we scoff at.

I actually find myself feeling sorry for the govt. which is very worrying.

Even if seemingly forced, I do not see Labour being any more able to make cuts than the current lot.

No doubt about it being "our" fault. We keep voting for crap parties.

However it will have to happen one day. Even if it is by the currency collapsing and government departments being literally unable to pay their bills. This could happen in 10 years under a mix of wet Tory governments or Lib/Tory coalitions, or it could happen within a couple of years of a Labour government, and to my way of thinking sooner is better. And Labour is better as it will lose them credibility for a generation, again, and be far more likely to return a strong Tory government with a mandate for proper reform.

If it happens after a decade of a a Tory government there is really no-one else to blame, and it will be them sitting in dwindling numbers on the opposition benches for another 3 terms while Labour continue to spend the most that they can, tax as highly as they can, regulate as much as they can, and generally lead us through another decade of stagnation on decline.

[martin84]

AJS- said:

Yes, and it led to the 80s where Thatcher bulldozed great swathes of it, and did some of what we need again now. It also kept Labour out of power for 18 years, and IMO if not for the Tory wets would have destroyed Labour completely. Which would be a good thing.

Yeah a single party state is just what a country needs

[crankedup]

Derek Smith said:

andymadmak said:

Just lost a chunk of respect for the Lib Dems.

From your previous posts I have assumed you were not an avid LibDem suporter. If this is correct then your feelings on the matter are of no consequence to them. They are after dragging back some of their disappearing support. That is, I assume, what this move was about.

They have been forced into this move, but not, it would appear, by Cameron but by a mob of backbenchers wanting to increase their influence on the party. They chose the LibDems to attack, rather than one of their own policies (although Lords reform was one of their policies of course). Clegg had to make a response and the most obvious, and of course most vulnerable, was boundary changes. This will hurt the tories (and, from my reckoning, some of the backbenchers even more) so ws the perfect vehicle.

I don't think it was done out of spite but out of necessity. The question for Clegg is whether this show of strength is enough for potential LibDem returnees. I doubt it myself.

Agreed, completely spot on.

[rudecherub]

martin84 said:

AJS- said:

Yes, and it led to the 80s where Thatcher bulldozed great swathes of it, and did some of what we need again now. It also kept Labour out of power for 18 years, and IMO if not for the Tory wets would have destroyed Labour completely. Which would be a good thing.

Yeah a single party state is just what a country needs

Well the US you get to choose between the Conservatives and the even more Conservatives.

[martin84]

rudecherub said:

Well the US you get to choose between the Conservatives and the even more Conservatives.

Here we get to choose between Blue Labour and Red Labour.

[AJS-]

martin84 said:

AJS- said:

Yes, and it led to the 80s where Thatcher bulldozed great swathes of it, and did some of what we need again now. It also kept Labour out of power for 18 years, and IMO if not for the Tory wets would have destroyed Labour completely. Which would be a good thing.

Yeah a single party state is just what a country needs

There are other parties besides Labour and Conservative.

If the Liberals were not competing in a spending contest with the Labour party they would be quite useful on some civil liberties issues. UKIP could pick up some seats.

The Labour party though, is a cancer, and ought to be destroyed. At it's core is a desire for greater state power in every aspect of life. Nationalisation, nanny statism, punitive taxation and class war. They seek to level down everything to their squalid standards, and ensure as best they can that no-one can ever surpass them.

They called themselves New Labour, and dropped the infamous clause 4 in 1994, but underneath they're still the party of big government.

[Bill Carr]

Just shows how out of touch our political class is. Given all our economic woes, do we really care about reforming an admittedly flawed institution that - more or less - works?

Get the economy back on track, then focus on "democratising" the Lords.

[Zod]

Elroy Blue said:

The infrastructure of the country is being cut beyond the bone.

No, it is not. There are no cuts. Spending continues to increase.

[crankedup]

andymadmak said:

Derek Smith said:

andymadmak said:

Just lost a chunk of respect for the Lib Dems.

From your previous posts I have assumed you were not an avid LibDem suporter...... etc .

No I wasn't a supporter, but I did have some respect for them in that, by joining the coalition, they were trying to do the right thing for the country, as opposed to simply courting public popularity with undeliverable headline grabbing policies (such as their pre election promise on student loans) and shouting bad things at whichever government was inpower and having to make the tough choices post Gordon Brown.
If, as other posters have suggested, the boundary change deal was actually linked to the AV referendum (and not Lords reform) then the Lib Dems have sunk even lower than a snakes belly. The Conservatives kept their part of the deal - its hardly their fault that the country rejected AV!

Cameron has been done up like a kipper by his own back benches, he made it his business to persuade his bank benches to provide a yes vote to the Lib-Dems Lords reform , he failed. The Lib-Dems dropped their policy regarding student loans as part of the Coalition agreement, they had to stand by the agreement. Its now time for the Conservatives to stand by their part of the agreement, they have failed to do so and for this reason the Lib-Dems are punishing the Conservatives by suggesting they will block any vote regarding the 'Boundary changes'. It is being put out in the long grass until after the next General Election. The Boundary changes package was not linked directly to the Lords Reform deal.

[Elroy Blue]

Zod said:

No, it is not. There are no cuts. Spending continues to increase.

Nonsense. Not in critical infrastructure it doesn't. The cuts are cery real But 'aid' is up 40 percent and you're doing very well if you like to build green energy stuff.

It's easy to cut the armed forces and the Police because they just have to take it. I'd say they're pretty critical to the safety of the country.

I'm a lifelong Conservative, but I will NEVER vote for them again as long as that clueless idiot Cameron leads them. He's right up there with Brown in my book (and Brown had the excuse he was mental)

[Zod]

Sorry, but you are the one speaking nonsense. Total governemnt expenditure is still increasing. It has not been cut.

The proportion of the budget spent on overseas aid is infinitesimal, but the overall amount is easy for the ignorant to focus upon.

[crankedup]

Bill Carr said:

Just shows how out of touch our political class is. Given all our economic woes, do we really care about reforming an admittedly flawed institution that - more or less - works?

Get the economy back on track, then focus on "democratising" the Lords.

Clegg said in his lunchtime statement, we need to get on and sort out the woes and suspects most people do not give a fig about Lords Reform, not so out of touch in reality. The Coalition is more important then this particular Lib-Dem manifesto promise. Again, in Coalition some things have to be put onto the back-burner or dropped.

[Elroy Blue]

Zod said:

Sorry, but you are the one speaking nonsense. Expenditure is still increasing. It has not been cut.

I must be imagining the culling of the armed Forces and Police!!

Read my post. They are destroying our country's infrastructure, while throwing money away elsewhere. Justify a 40+ percent increase in the 'aid' budget. It's indefensible.