The end of the coalition?

[will_]

martin84 said:

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.

I take your point regarding votes vs seats.

However in my view they shouldn't be there at all. Usually, unless you get "in", you get nothing except the chance to vote against the government. You certainly don't get seats in the cabinet. In my view the Tories should have risked it alone - they're getting little through anyway. What we need is a government unhindered by being constantly forced to compromise with a minority special interest party who shouldn't, and wouldn't have, got anywhere near government. This would (a) stop the government appearing to be fairly useless and (b) allow an actual difference to be made.

It just doesn't seem "fair" that a party with such a relatively small amount of support from the electorate can hold the country to ransom to further their own agenda, which clearly didn't have enough popular support to have such power in the first place.

Edited by will_ on Wednesday 8th August 20:40

[Johnnytheboy]

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.

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

Yesterday on R4 a Lib Dem was referring to his party as "one half" of the coalition which I thought was a nice definition..

[will_]

Johnnytheboy said:

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.

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

Yesterday on R4 a Lib Dem was referring to his party as "one half" of the coalition which I thought was a nice definition..

Hope he isn't part of the Treasury....

[martin84]

will_ said:

I take your point regarding votes vs seats.

The votes vs seats shows how boundaries maybe need to be changed. For the Lib Dems to bring 39% of the votes but only 16% of the seats which form the Government is pretty odd. In my view it's seats which form a Government so seats is what we'll focus on. I think they've got their 16% personally.

will_ said:

However in my view they shouldn't be there at all. Usually, unless you get "in", you get nothing except the chance to vote against the government. You certainly don't get seats in the cabinet. In my view the Tories should have risked it alone - they're getting little through anyway. What we need is a government unhindered by being constantly forced to compromise with a minority special interest party who shouldn't, and wouldn't have, got anywhere near government. This would (a) stop the government appearing to be fairly useless and (b) allow an actual difference to be made.

You're acting as though we didn't see it coming. A Hung Parliament was on the cards for quite some time so everybody had time to examine options. In 1974 the HP was a big surprise nobody saw coming. People had spoken about the Lib Dems as 'king makers' before the election, knowing either Labour or the Conservative's would probably need their support to form a Government. In preperation the Lib Dems got a Cameron waxwork as their leader and waited for their moment.

You say you want a Government unhindered by having to compromise with a small party, but if the Conservative's formed a minority Government (20 seats short) they wouldn't be in a position to pass their legislation in the house and would therefore have to compromise with opposition parties anyway. Don't forget there are no UKIP MP's so no further-right votes to get on certain issues. Coalition and Minority Government are much the same thing.

will_ said:

It just doesn't seem "fair" that a party with such a relatively small amount of support from the electorate can hold the country to ransom to further their own agenda, which clearly didn't have enough popular support to have such power in the first place.

Refusing changes to boundaries which will only be relevant in three years time and only to Members of Parliament is hardly 'holding the country to ransom' to be fair. Some would say having earned 39% of the votes gained to form the Government they should have a fairly big voice - 39% worth. What I find more unfair is how Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have devolved Government but it is votes in them three countries which caused a Hung Parliament in the first place.

If entrance to Downing Street was based purely on votes in England, the Conservative's would've won with a 30 seat majority, taking 297 of the 533 up for grabs. The Conservative's problem was they only got 800,000 votes outside England.