The Lib-Lab coalition
Discussion
clonmult said:
GavinPearson said:
It would make another unelected PM run the country, they (the coalition) will inevitably make the Greek fiasco look like sunshine and lollipops, and the general public will get to see the politicians for who they really are.
What do I think?I think that I wish people would bloody well stop saying "another unelected PM".
You vote for a combination of party/local MP/PM. Anyone who thinks they're voting specifically for the PM obviously thinks that they're in america. We're not.
If we do somehow get a lib/lab coalition, it'll no doubt be ludicrously weak, but when the s
t does hit the fan, they'll definitely be able to blame someone else. Thatcher? Some bunch of euro-types who obviously didn't quite understand the problem, therefore causing a larger worldwide problem ....Puggit said:
Jasandjules said:
clonmult said:
You vote for a combination of party/local MP/PM. Anyone who thinks they're voting specifically for the PM obviously thinks that they're in america. We're not.
However, you vote in part on the basis that the person leading the party will be PM. i.e. you voted Labour to get BLiar in 1997.... It's not as simple as you suggest.
Even Gordon f-ing Brown admitted it yesterday.
I know Blair said he'd serve a full third term, but to believe that you'd have had to have believed Tony Blair was telling the truth. And what would that make you?
Andy Zarse said:
Puggit said:
Jasandjules said:
clonmult said:
You vote for a combination of party/local MP/PM. Anyone who thinks they're voting specifically for the PM obviously thinks that they're in america. We're not.
However, you vote in part on the basis that the person leading the party will be PM. i.e. you voted Labour to get BLiar in 1997.... It's not as simple as you suggest.
Even Gordon f-ing Brown admitted it yesterday.
I know Blair said he'd serve a full third term, but to believe that you'd have had to have believed Tony Blair was telling the truth. And what would that make you?
What annoys me is the warped logic of many Labour and Lib Dems, and what's even more worrying is that I can understand their warped logic 
Combined, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems won a bigger share of the vote, and more seats, so it goes without saying that they should govern. But that is shared between blue and red.
The Lab/Lib argument goes that they have a bigger share of the vote/seats than the Con/Lib because even though the numbers show that this is not the case, it is shared between red and red.
David steel was effectively saying last night that Labour and the Libs had actually won the election, and that the majority vote was split between the two red party's, ergo together they are the legitimate government.
Combined, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems won a bigger share of the vote, and more seats, so it goes without saying that they should govern. But that is shared between blue and red.
The Lab/Lib argument goes that they have a bigger share of the vote/seats than the Con/Lib because even though the numbers show that this is not the case, it is shared between red and red.
David steel was effectively saying last night that Labour and the Libs had actually won the election, and that the majority vote was split between the two red party's, ergo together they are the legitimate government.
Edited by Balmoral Green on Tuesday 11th May 09:03
ewenm said:
The maths of such a coalition say that it would be short-lived anyway. Remember it isn't Lib+Lab, it would have to be Lib+Lab+SNP+PC+... a "rainbow" coalition which is never going to be very stable.
I disagree. Money talks, spending cuts walk. To England... They would buy off the minority parties with unlimited funds for the NI gangsters, give the Welsh loads of "green jobs", and send more and more golden elephants up north to the Scotch. England will pay through the nose and take all the pain. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lower retirement age in Scotland.johnnyc said:
Just a thought but what if they really did form a "progressive" alliance and decided not to stand against each other in the next election ? Surely this would wipe out the Tories in all marginal seats...is this likely ?
Not very. The Libs are not an exact match for Labour. They WILL be a PITA for them.ewenm said:
The maths of such a coalition say that it would be short-lived anyway. Remember it isn't Lib+Lab, it would have to be Lib+Lab+SNP+PC+... a "rainbow" coalition which is never going to be very stable.
Neither coalition options are anything other than fragile for the reasons you, and Balmoral Green state.There doesn't appear to be any pragmatic solution other than some sort of agreement to allow Cameron to lead a concensus parliament with an extremely limited agenda to reduce public sector spending and possibly introduce some form of PR. A new election timetable to be agreed for May 2011.
Not a particularly satisfactory situation.
Take some scissors, and cut scotland off the bottom of the results, then see who is a clear winner.
It's not Lab red, and it's not Lib yellow - that makes orange - and with a bit of green thrown in you're left with, well, probably a stty brown colour. It'll stink like st too.
A shaky Lib/Lab/Green/Loony coalition is ideal - as the Torys will then be open to govern for, ooh, about a million years after the next election, post IMF bailouts, huge cuts, powerouts and riots that'll make the winter of discontent look like a tea party.
Or maybe I'm being a bit too negative - as the BrownBC (BallsBC?) seem to have been saying when discussing anything money related, we're not Greece. We're 'far better placed to continue with the recovery'.
Is it good news for the Torys? Long term, hell yes.
It's not Lab red, and it's not Lib yellow - that makes orange - and with a bit of green thrown in you're left with, well, probably a s
tty brown colour. It'll stink like st too.A shaky Lib/Lab/Green/Loony coalition is ideal - as the Torys will then be open to govern for, ooh, about a million years after the next election, post IMF bailouts, huge cuts, powerouts and riots that'll make the winter of discontent look like a tea party.
Or maybe I'm being a bit too negative - as the BrownBC (BallsBC?) seem to have been saying when discussing anything money related, we're not Greece. We're 'far better placed to continue with the recovery'.
Is it good news for the Torys? Long term, hell yes.
W124Bob said:
So Manchester United win the league after all because they borrowed a couple of goals from Arsenel and Tottenham,Brilliant!
That’s not strictly true, it’s on a par with my own Norwich City not only being promoted again but then being awarded 100 goals at the start of the season guaranteeing them a Champions League spot for the following season.Borrowing a few goals does this farce no justice at all, to the barricades we go
Vario-Rob said:
W124Bob said:
So Manchester United win the league after all because they borrowed a couple of goals from Arsenel and Tottenham,Brilliant!
That’s not strictly true, it’s on a par with my own Norwich City not only being promoted again but then being awarded 100 goals at the start of the season guaranteeing them a Champions League spot for the following season.Borrowing a few goals does this farce no justice at all, to the barricades we go
shocking really.
Guam said:
The Scots seem to want it both ways, have their own Parliament run their own affairs and do their best to screw up Englands prospect.
for the first time given the behaviour of the SNP in all this I am now fully in favour of the Dissolution of the UNION!
Sadly with the scottish parliment we get the worst of both worlds. Stupid damn near powerless meddling from the Edinburgh lot and stupid londoncentric laws and taxation from the London lot.for the first time given the behaviour of the SNP in all this I am now fully in favour of the Dissolution of the UNION!
Also the north of england incase you haven't noticed is pretty red.
But you will be happy as the next PM will probably be english and that was the worst thing about winky.
Oh well vote lizard
Anyone see John Reid being interviewed on GMTV this morning ? For the first time in my life I agreed with every word uttered by a Labour politician, to summarise he said Winky resigning and talks with the Lib dems and other minority parties was doing them NO favours whatsoever, all it would result in would be ANOTHER unelected PM and this was undemocratic and unfair to the electorate. He summarised by saying the best thing would be for Labour to accept defeat as they needed to accept they had lost the election.
Apologies if I'm missing the point here, but does anyone else think it'd be a tiny bit hypocritical for the Lib Dems to centre much of their campaign on proportional representation and then side with the party that got less votes?
I realise voting reform is a fundamental stumbling block with the Tories, but surely now they're promising a referendum they are the 'proportional' choice?
On a slightly different note, my personal objection was to Gordon Brown rather than the Labour party as such (although I probably still wouldn't have voted for them). I suspect a lot of floating voters would go back to Labour if another election was called without Winky in charge - the ex-Labour supporters who reluctantly voted for one of the other two main parties may take the view that they've had their chance now.
I realise voting reform is a fundamental stumbling block with the Tories, but surely now they're promising a referendum they are the 'proportional' choice?
On a slightly different note, my personal objection was to Gordon Brown rather than the Labour party as such (although I probably still wouldn't have voted for them). I suspect a lot of floating voters would go back to Labour if another election was called without Winky in charge - the ex-Labour supporters who reluctantly voted for one of the other two main parties may take the view that they've had their chance now.
Chris71 said:
Apologies if I'm missing the point here, but does anyone else think it'd be a tiny bit hypocritical for the Lib Dems to centre much of their campaign on proportional representation and then side with the party that got less votes?
I realise voting reform is a fundamental stumbling block with the Tories, but surely now they're promising a referendum they are the 'proportional' choice?
On a slightly different note, my personal objection was to Gordon Brown rather than the Labour party as such (although I probably still wouldn't have voted for them). I suspect a lot of floating voters would go back to Labour if another election was called without Winky in charge - the ex-Labour supporters who reluctantly voted for one of the other two main parties may take the view that they've had their chance now.
no, because that is exactly what they want.I realise voting reform is a fundamental stumbling block with the Tories, but surely now they're promising a referendum they are the 'proportional' choice?
On a slightly different note, my personal objection was to Gordon Brown rather than the Labour party as such (although I probably still wouldn't have voted for them). I suspect a lot of floating voters would go back to Labour if another election was called without Winky in charge - the ex-Labour supporters who reluctantly voted for one of the other two main parties may take the view that they've had their chance now.
i said it somewhere else, but if they get this as part of a deal with labour, we may as well have polling cards with 2 boxes on. 'conservative' and 'anything but conservative'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff