The end of the coalition?

[andymadmak]

wollowizard said:

TankRizzo said:

wollowizard said:

How many playing feilds did labour sell? and how many have the coalition sold?

The Grauniad said:

Cameron also disputed recent figures obtained via a freedom of information request by the Guardian, showing 21 playing fields had been sold in the last two years. He said 14 of these schools had closed, four had become amalgamated, and four had sold some surplus marginal grassland, and used the proceeds to improve school facilities.

That doesn't stop people like derek spouting their version of the truth as usual.

Indeed, but you know the thing is, even when these left leaning folk are caught out like this and its shown that they are talking utter nonsense (in some cases talking complete fabrications) it doesn't stop them repeating the crap like its still gospel. I've seen it loads of times on PH over the years.

[Derek Smith]

andymadmak said:

Derek Smith said:

We now have the tories supporting sports in schools and saying how good they are. Lovely headline.

At the same time they are closing school playing fields, stopping compulsory PE and creating schools whith no playgrounds or outside space. Perhaps Caemron's previous role is becoming useful.

Thats a little disingenuous

How so?

The criticism is of spin. On the one hand they are taking creidt for the performance at the olympics and on the other they are doing exactly what I've said. I don't think that is disingenuous. If a playing field is sold off it is lost forever, gone, dead to sport. Whether it is attached to a school or merely currently a bit of grassland, it has still gone. As for the statement 'improving school facilities', that's just blatent.

The new free schools are not subject to the requirement for outside space and playgrounds.

My experience is that there is pressure on state schools to sell off land. There is no planning for enlargment of schools.

[Derek Smith]

wollowizard said:

How many playing feilds did labour sell? and how many have the coalition sold?

Have you no concept of relevence?

In an argument about coalition spin, the previous government's performance cannot have any relevence. Can't you see this?

[wollowizard]

Derek Smith said:

wollowizard said:

How many playing feilds did labour sell? and how many have the coalition sold?

Have you no concept of relevence?

In an argument about coalition spin, the previous government's performance cannot have any relevence. Can't you see this?

You are spinning it as a david cameron thing and using it against him on a public forum, This is labour spin, whether from a party official or from a lay memeber or even just a voter, can't you see that!

Some of us have enough brains to scratch the surfice and discover the truth PH in particular is good at that other forums just swallow the bullst spouted by people like you.

[martin84]

will_ said:

What has always bothered me is the fact that the Lib Dems have sought to heavily influence government policy when the votes they received should only have ever allowed them to be a bit-player. They have certainly exerted more influence than (in my view) they had any right to do, simply because they can, and not because that is what the country wanted. If the country wanted the Lib-Dems to be in a seriously powerful role they would have voted them there. They didn't.

Between them they got around 17.5million votes, with the Tories taking 10.7m of them. So the Conservatives got around 61% of the votes. In terms of seats the Tories got 306 to the Lib Dems 57 so the Conservative's got around 84% of the seats which were won to make up the Coalition. The Ministry is made up of 18 Conservative MP's and 5 Liberal Democrat MP's so the Tories make up around 80% of the Ministry which seems to tally with the seats won.

If you judge it on votes then you could say the Lib Dems are entitled to more than 'bit player' having brought 39% of the votes to form the Government, but in bringing only 16% of the seats then maybe they don't deserve much. The question is have they got their 16% worth?

will_ said:

Of course the same could be said for the Tories, but in hindsight they would have been much better as a minority government.

As minority Government they'd never get anything passed.

[wollowizard]

martin84 said:

As minority Government they'd never get anything passed.

Yes but then thye could point at Red Ed and say it's his fault, whatever is wrong it would be his fault. It was a political goal that could have been scored but the national interest and actually setting up a government however you rate it, was far more important.

[martin84]

wollowizard said:

Yes but then thye could point at Red Ed and say it's his fault, whatever is wrong it would be his fault.

Yeah that's really how it'd play isn't it The last time we had Minority Government it lasted a few months before another election.

[wollowizard]

martin84 said:

wollowizard said:

Yes but then thye could point at Red Ed and say it's his fault, whatever is wrong it would be his fault.

Yeah that's really how it'd play isn't it The last time we had Minority Government it lasted a few months before another election.

And that would have been Eds fault too. It is a good job CMD put the nation before political point scoring.

[martin84]

wollowizard said:

And that would have been Eds fault too. It is a good job CMD put the nation before political point scoring.

Labour would be scoring all the points. Cameron would be trying to cut things and Labour would be portrayed as not letting them do it, and therefore saving the NHS and public services from the evil Tory.

[wollowizard]

martin84 said:

wollowizard said:

And that would have been Eds fault too. It is a good job CMD put the nation before political point scoring.

Labour would be scoring all the points. Cameron would be trying to cut things and Labour would be portrayed as not letting them do it, and therefore saving the NHS and public services from the evil Tory.

You are forgetting that people didn't vote for labour, one of the biggest reasons was they were letting the debt get out of control and doing NOTHING about it.

I think you underestimate the electorate.

[martin84]

wollowizard said:

You are forgetting that people didn't vote for labour, one of the biggest reasons was they were letting the debt get out of control and doing NOTHING about it.

I think you underestimate the electorate.

8.6million people still voted for Labour despite being one of the most unpopular Governments of all time towards the end - on a par with the unpopularity of the Tories in the late days of Major and the dying days of Thatcher's leadership. They were led by Brown who was supposedly fish in a barrel but not enough of the electorate were convinced that Cameron would be any better. What does that say about the electorate and Cameron?

[Zod]

wollowizard said:

I think you underestimate the electorate.

I'm not sure it's possible to underestimate the electorate.

8.6 million idiots still voted Labour at the last general election.

[wollowizard]

martin84 said:

wollowizard said:

You are forgetting that people didn't vote for labour, one of the biggest reasons was they were letting the debt get out of control and doing NOTHING about it.

I think you underestimate the electorate.

8.6million people still voted for Labour despite being one of the most unpopular Governments of all time towards the end - on a par with the unpopularity of the Tories in the late days of Major and the dying days of Thatcher's leadership. They were led by Brown who was supposedly fish in a barrel but not enough of the electorate were convinced that Cameron would be any better. What does that say about the electorate and Cameron?

Unsure maybe. I see as you do, the fact I voted for conservative doesn't cloud my judgement I have even said on this thread the current government wouldn't make the top ten of our all time best, but at least they are trying, at least they were prepared to give it a go despite knowing they would be very unpopular and have fk all to spend. There were easier options and I don't think they are getting nearly enough credit for trying as they should be.

[DJRC]

martin84 said:

wollowizard said:

You are forgetting that people didn't vote for labour, one of the biggest reasons was they were letting the debt get out of control and doing NOTHING about it.

I think you underestimate the electorate.

8.6million people still voted for Labour despite being one of the most unpopular Governments of all time towards the end - on a par with the unpopularity of the Tories in the late days of Major and the dying days of Thatcher's leadership. They were led by Brown who was supposedly fish in a barrel but not enough of the electorate were convinced that Cameron would be any better. What does that say about the electorate and Cameron?

It said that they didnt really trust him, know him and were in general a little confused between the 2 main parties and that nice Clegg chap seemed safe.

In hindsight wollow is correct in terms of Tory tactics. It would have been easy to form a minority govt. put before the country the spending plans, the cuts and the "here is what nasty medicine needs to be taken" and let Labour attack. The riposte would have been blindingly simple..."you guys overspent, this is now paying off the credit card, oh and your spending plans were exactly the same." Once in govt it is a much much much bigger advantage to put your position across than being in Opposition. Being the incumbent always conveys an inherent advantage.

It would have been 5 months of turmoil for the country at a time when we really didnt need it though. I am highly disappointed with the Lib Dems though, they have been given the perfect platform on which to govern. To be a grown up party, with real power to pursue grown up politics. They have completely shot themselves in the foot by trying to play back bench, 3rd party, opposition politics. Not once have they shown a desire to help the country, to lead it and face up. I feel a bit sorry for Clegg, he got them into govt and his party have done everything they can to make it a disaster.

Talk about a lost bloody chance.

[martin84]

I'll repeat my question from earlier though, have the Lib Dems got their 16%? If we're judging it on basis of seats won.

They got their AV referendum. They got their higher stamp duty on expensive homes. They got their higher personal allowances (which the Conservative's also wanted, the only debate was over the actual figure). They got time devoted to House of Lords reform which they made a dogs dinner of. It should also be pointed out Vince Cable was the main architecht of the Tuition Fee raising, despite the fact it's been deemed a Tory measure which the Lib Dems rolled over on.

[anonymous-user]

must admit i've not been following uk politics for a while but i do wonder what the point of the libdems is. when the country is on its knees financially, when we're sliding down almost every metric of competitiveness imaginable they have been expending all their energy on the very least important things from pointless parliamentary reforms to gay marriage. perhaps the only thing they have really 'acheived' of any real consequence is reducing access to further education for the poor. i'm baffled by them to be honest.

[bobbylondonuk]

The only reason the Lib dems are even making noises is because they brainwashed all the students during election time. Next time around..it aint happenin! The sad part of it is that the party leadership has no sense of reality when it comes to their political power. they seem to think they are powerful enough to call shots..they are not! If there is an election because the Libdems threw a tantrum..they will disappear completely. Idiots

[rs1952]

fbrs said:

rs1952 said:

fbrs said:

is this really in dispute?
2005 general election results for england;
Labour 286 seats 8,043,461 votes
Con 194 seats 8,116,005 votes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/eng...

That is the best bit of selective quoting I've seen for ages. How come you missed out the next line?

Lib Dem 47 seats 5,201,286 votes

If you argue (as I presume you do) that the electoral system is skewed against the tories, the surely you must agree that it is even more skewed against the lib dems?

of course its skewed against the libdims also but you 2 were talking about con/lab. first past the post is even worse for ukip but thats irrelevant.
the quote is selective for an obvious reason, if you can't see why i doubt explaining it will help, but then i provided the link so your implication i'm distorting the data is silly. i'm sorry if the stats disprove your point.

The point that I was making was perhaps a subtle one. We often hear a variation the line: "it takes more votes to elect a tory MP than a labour one" with the implication that the electoral system is skewed against the conservatives.

My point in adding the third line (and indeed yours by mentioning UKIP's lack of MPs) was to make the (bloody obvious) point that the first past the post system throws up anomalies like these by its very nature, and simply bleating about how skewed the system is against the tories (not you personally but others have brought it up on this thread) is an example of being very selective with data to attempt to prove a point.

[rs1952]

bobbylondonuk said:

If there is an election because the Libdems threw a tantrum..they will disappear completely. Idiots

And they know it.

Which is exactly why the coalition will not be ending any time soon.

[anonymous-user]

rs1952 said:

fbrs said:

rs1952 said:

fbrs said:

is this really in dispute?
2005 general election results for england;
Labour 286 seats 8,043,461 votes
Con 194 seats 8,116,005 votes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/eng...

That is the best bit of selective quoting I've seen for ages. How come you missed out the next line?

Lib Dem 47 seats 5,201,286 votes

If you argue (as I presume you do) that the electoral system is skewed against the tories, the surely you must agree that it is even more skewed against the lib dems?

of course its skewed against the libdims also but you 2 were talking about con/lab. first past the post is even worse for ukip but thats irrelevant.
the quote is selective for an obvious reason, if you can't see why i doubt explaining it will help, but then i provided the link so your implication i'm distorting the data is silly. i'm sorry if the stats disprove your point.

The point that I was making was perhaps a subtle one. We often hear a variation the line: "it takes more votes to elect a tory MP than a labour one" with the implication that the electoral system is skewed against the conservatives.

My point in adding the third line (and indeed yours by mentioning UKIP's lack of MPs) was to make the (bloody obvious) point that the first past the post system throws up anomalies like these by its very nature, and simply bleating about how skewed the system is against the tories (not you personally but others have brought it up on this thread) is an example of being very selective with data to attempt to prove a point.

first past the post inevitably leads to bigger parties gaining a disproportionate number of seats, i think we can all agree
but first past the post does not inevitably lead to a party with fewer actual votes gaining a landslide victory which is what the 2005 data shows; this is entirely down to uneven boundaries, ie smaller labour wards. its a valid complaint imo