Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

Why is it bollox?

The Tory party and the LibDems campaigned as separate parties with very different agenda's. Never was the option of a Con-Dem gvmt talked about by either party as part of their manifesto or pre-election pledges. The policies that they were voted in for have quickly been amended, dropped or complete and utter U turn.

So Jon you may think it's complete bollox, but the facts don't lie.

They are in power - together - as a result of a national election. That makes them elected. It's not rocket science Ian.

[Awol]

I suspect that had Labour and the Lib Dems gone into a coalition in order to form a government you would be taking a slightly different view.

[drat01]

sorry Jon - a quick look back at the pre-election threads on VT even shows that no one voted for a Con-LibDem gvmt.

Even you as a Tory supporter must be amazed at how many mistakes this lot have made and the balls ups that seem to happen as a daily occurrence.

It's cock up after cock up after cock up. Arse not knowing what Elbow is doing, embarrassing gaffes, underhand dealings from dodgy supporters etc etc. This Gvmt was not elected, it has no mandate. Roll on the next elections

[Awol]

I'll stop wasting my time Ian because you're clearly on another planet if you think that this government is not elected.

Your hatred is consuming your reason.

[drat01]

I suspect that had Labour and the Lib Dems gone into a coalition in order to form a government you would be taking a slightly different view.

Interesting because a lot more of the pre election things were closer between LibDems and Labour.

I just remember with a wry smile your and many Tory supporters bleats about unelected PM's and all that gumf. I remember the ridicule and damnation of LibDem policy and their ability to form a Gvmt. I remember the lies about VAT, about political funding, about front line services etc etc.

Let's be fair your lot would have had a better chance if they had gone as a minority Gvmt rather than the joke "brokeback" we have now. This Gvmt have got little in the way of history of common policy, other than Clegg's early days as a Tory I suppose. And for all the ludicrous and stomach churning love in that Cameron and Clegg try to portray its obvious that this is not in the best interest of the country.

Cameron and Osborne we knew were weak, it seems though that they were stronger than Clegg and Cable.

Ah well it's Sunday tomorrow always a good day for a political read. I wonder what more will come out this week re Sheffield - could be an interesting one in the near future I suspect

[bickster]

Why is it bollox?

The Tory party and the LibDems campaigned as separate parties with very different agenda's. Never was the option of a Con-Dem gvmt talked about by either party as part of their manifesto or pre-election pledges. The policies that they were voted in for have quickly been amended, dropped or complete and utter U turn.

So Jon you may think it's complete bollox, but the facts don't lie.

Its bollocks for the following reasons

1) They were elected, no party got no overall majority so the options were to either go back to the country straight away (and get no result again in all likelihood - apart from Phil Woolas losing his seat this time) or for either of the two biggest parties to try and form a coalition with the LibDems, which really would get us nowhere (fast). If theres one thing the markets really don't like its unstable government, not as was previously suggested coalition governments per se

2) Nowhere in the world is there an option on a voting paper for the people to mandate a party to side with another one in the event of a hung parliament, coalition governments are elected democratically. No party has ever campaigned in an election and said "We won't win but if its a hung parliament we'll side with this party", election campaigns are about trying to get your parties policies across what happens after the election in these circumstances is a different thing altogether

3) Governments of all hues say stuff before elections and completely backtrack on them after being elected (Didn't take Labour long to ditch half of Bliars first manifesto), coalition or not

What has happened here is a perfectly normal electoral practice, very common in other parts of the world, it just doesn't happen here very often, though it should be noted last time it did happen it was the Labour Party that jumped into bed with the old Liberal Party and its not as if Labour weren't also trying to get the LibDems on board in the post result scramble

See this is what happens when we have political parties, it is a natural consequence of the moribund party political system in this country. More and more people are beginning to see the big picture, what the people haven't yet decided on though is how to replace it and until there is some form of consensus on that we will continue the pretence of democracy

[drat01]

I'll stop wasting my time Ian because you're clearly on another planet if you think that this government is not elected.

Your hatred is consuming your reason.

No problems Jon - just because something is blindingly obvious I can understand why you wont see it. You keep telling me that the Con and Dem's are not one party but then you say they are the elected Gvmt - its a crazy world out there :-)

[drat01]

1) They were elected, no party got no overall majority so the options were to either go back to the country straight away (and get no result again in all likelihood - apart from Phil Woolas losing his seat this time) or for either of the two biggest parties to try and form a coalition with the LibDems, which really would get us nowhere (fast). If theres one thing the markets really don't like its unstable government, not as was previously suggested coalition governments per se

Oooh I like these - at least you had the good manners to say why you think its bollox - even though I thought that was not really respecting others views but I know that there are rules for one and rules for others. Anyway to your "bollox" - see you miss out a key number 3 a minority Gvmt. Can you please show me a ballot paper or a candidate that stood as a Con-Dem or part of any alliance or coalition. Go on show me that please? I suspect even you will not be able to show that, unless good old photoshop is working. Yes the Cons and the Dem's joined to make a Gvmt, they also then changed the voting rules to stop any questioning or challenging of this "marriage". Surely if they are confident of their ability, right to lead the country why not call another election and stand as joint party?

2) Nowhere in the world is there an option on a voting paper for the people to mandate a party to side with another one in the event of a hung parliament, coalition governments are elected democratically. No party has ever campaigned in an election and said "We won't win but if its a hung parliament we'll side with this party", election campaigns are about trying to get your parties policies across what happens after the election in these circumstances is a different thing altogether

Nowhere? I see your knowledge of how other countries typically run their elections is not so great as you may think. Often in countries where hung parliaments happen the parties will declare who their "preferred" alliances will be with. Seeing as the Tory party and the LibDems had such different manifesto's on key areas, I suspect that a lot of people who voted for these did not foresee, or want some of the key changes that have been imposed so quickly.

3) Governments of all hues say stuff before elections and completely backtrack on them after being elected (Didn't take Labour long to ditch half of Bliars first manifesto), coalition or not

So quickly as this one has? - No I don't believe that at all. - Oh and I see the rules re names don't apply to you so again one rule for one and another for others it would seem

What has happened here is a perfectly normal electoral practice, very common in other parts of the world, it just doesn't happen here very often, though it should be noted last time it did happen it was the Labour Party that jumped into bed with the old Liberal Party and its not as if Labour weren't also trying to get the LibDems on board in the post result scramble

Yes it is a normal electoral practice in a lot of the rest of the world, not in the UK though as you said. Yes the LibLab pact of before did happen and we saw a new part as a result of it. I don't see what your point is though, because all you are saying is what happens.

See this is what happens when we have political parties, it is a natural consequence of the moribund party political system in this country. More and more people are beginning to see the big picture, what the people haven't yet decided on though is how to replace it and until there is some form of consensus on that we will continue the pretence of democracy

Ahh now political parties we do agree on, but your idea of all independents (one I think is a good one) just is not going to happen though is it?

[Awol]

at least you had the good manners to say why you think its bollox - even though I thought that was not really respecting others views but I know that there are rules for one and rules for others.

It's not about respecting other views - which I do - it's about challenging the things you post that are factually untrue, like stating that the current governent are unelected. Quite clearly that statement is false, or put another way, a load of bollocks.

[leviramsey]

Can you please show me a ballot paper or a candidate that stood as a Con-Dem or part of any alliance or coalition. Go on show me that please? I suspect even you will not be able to show that, unless good old photoshop is working.

I seem to remember you posting not too long ago that the electorate doesn't vote for the government, they vote for MPs who then form a government.

[peterms]

at least you had the good manners to say why you think its bollox - even though I thought that was not really respecting others views but I know that there are rules for one and rules for others.

It's not about respecting other views - which I do - it's about challenging the things you post that are factually untrue, like stating that the current governent are unelected. Quite clearly that statement is false, or put another way, a load of bollocks.

Can you please show me a ballot paper or a candidate that stood as a Con-Dem or part of any alliance or coalition. Go on show me that please? I suspect even you will not be able to show that, unless good old photoshop is working.

I seem to remember you posting not too long ago that the electorate doesn't vote for the government, they vote for MPs who then form a government.

The constitutional position is that we elect MPs, who then form a government, rather than that we elect a government.

In fact, most people vote for a party than selecting between individuals, and when there is a single-party government, no-one normally feels they had no idea what they would be getting if the party they voted for won.

In the current situation, people voted for parties as usual, but the government which ensued wasn't what many people expected; though it was always reasonably likely from the polling figures that there might be a coalition of some sort, I don't think anyone can claim to have known what balance would ensue and what programme would be on offer.

So we do technically vote for MPs not a government, but in practice people vote for the party they wish to see form a government, and have a reasonable understanding of what it will do if it wins; and this time round, people didn't vote for this particular coalition, because it wasn't put forward as a proposition.

I think that's why it feels like this particular government is more removed than usual from what people voted for.

[bickster]

Oooh I like these - at least you had the good manners to say why you think its bollox - even though I thought that was not really respecting others views but I know that there are rules for one and rules for others.

I was merely answering your question "why is it bollox?" so where was the disrespect? You say "Why is it bollox?" I say "its bollocks because", seems perfectly acceptable to use the term you yourself deemed acceptable by your usage of it

see you miss out a key number 3 a minority Gvmt.

Yes I did, because that only comes into play if none of the parties can get into bed with each other so to speak, they did so it is irrelevant, you can't force a minority government if two or more parties together have the necessary majority

Can you please show me a ballot paper or a candidate that stood as a Con-Dem or part of any alliance or coalition. Go on show me that please? I suspect even you will not be able to show that, unless good old photoshop is working. Yes the Cons and the Dem's joined to make a Gvmt, they also then changed the voting rules to stop any questioning or challenging of this "marriage". Surely if they are confident of their ability, right to lead the country why not call another election and stand as joint party?

No I can't and nor should I be able to, coalition governments happen, you appear unable to accept it

Nowhere? I see your knowledge of how other countries typically run their elections is not so great as you may think. Often in countries where hung parliaments happen the parties will declare who their "preferred" alliances will be with.

On the actual voting paper? Don't think so, and in those systems (part of the Australian system for one) the voters can either over ride the parties preferences in votes themselves or opt to have the party transfer the votes for for them. We don't have that kind of democracy here yet, doubt we ever will but…

Oh and I see the rules re names don't apply to you so again one rule for one and another for others it would seem

Tony Blair is an Aston Villa footballer? Thats the only time we do that

Yes it is a normal electoral practice in a lot of the rest of the world, not in the UK though as you said. Yes the LibLab pact of before did happen and we saw a new part as a result of it. I don't see what your point is though, because all you are saying is what happens.

We did not see a new party as a result of the LibLab Pact. It is normal electoral practice in the UK, nothing extra-ordinary has happened, Just because it doesn't happen very often, doesn't mean it isn't normal

Ahh now political parties we do agree on, but your idea of all independents (one I think is a good one) just is not going to happen though is it?

Never say never

[snowychap]

The constitutional position is that we elect MPs, who then form a government, rather than that we elect a government.

In fact, most people vote for a party than selecting between individuals, and when there is a single-party government, no-one normally feels they had no idea what they would be getting if the party they voted for won.

In the current situation, people voted for parties as usual, but the government which ensued wasn't what many people expected; though it was always reasonably likely from the polling figures that there might be a coalition of some sort, I don't think anyone can claim to have known what balance would ensue and what programme would be on offer.

So we do technically vote for MPs not a government, but in practice people vote for the party they wish to see form a government, and have a reasonable understanding of what it will do if it wins; and this time round, people didn't vote for this particular coalition, because it wasn't put forward as a proposition.

I think that's why it feels like this particular government is more removed than usual from what people voted for.

Whilst I do have sympathy for the feeling of being removed (and in this case, more removed than usual), the 'constitutional position' is the right one and it is what happens in practice.

I do have some sympathy with people not necessarily understanding how things work (our political education, in terms of process, history, &c. is pretty bloody poor in this country) but I don't have much sympathy if people don't actually learn from the situation that has arisen in that how they blindly thought things happened (because they had got used to one particular type of result rather than a panoply of possibilities) and how they behaved accordingly was a failure to comprehend the process and what their involvement in that process ought to be.

If the electorate don't take the opportunity to make themselves aware of that and if the knowledgeable areas of our media, for example, don't help them (as I'd suggest they didn't during the election campaign when talk of hung parliaments and coalition governments focussed around 'markets' hitting rock bottom, going to the IMF and the sky falling in instead of how things might practically develop were no party to have received an overall majority) then we might well have the same next time round and the next and so on.

[drat01]

Can you please show me a ballot paper or a candidate that stood as a Con-Dem or part of any alliance or coalition. Go on show me that please? I suspect even you will not be able to show that, unless good old photoshop is working.

I seem to remember you posting not too long ago that the electorate doesn't vote for the government, they vote for MPs who then form a government.

Abso-flippin-lutely - the fact that any candidate puts a party besides their name means though that if and when they get elected there is a damn good chance that they will follow the party line and at an election this is typically what gets put into the manifesto.

As Peter rightly says though what people voted for and expected as part of the Gvmt is not what they are getting due to this "alliance" "merged" "coalition" call it what you want.

My money is 100% on the fact that no one voted for a Tory / LibDem gvmt following the (harmful) policies that we are seeing at the moment. No one at all voted for a MP that would be a part of this new regime, because it was not an option - hence unelected.

But a good deflection to get away from the idea of this thread which was talk about the Gvmt and its god awful policies

[snowychap]

As Peter rightly says though what people voted for and expected as part of the Gvmt is not what they are getting due to this coalition call it what you want.

And that is their (people's) problem if they don't understand how things actually work.

[peterms]

Whilst I do have sympathy for the feeling of being removed (and in this case, more removed than usual), the 'constitutional position' is the right one and it is what happens in practice.

No, that's my point, it isn't what happens in practice. The theory is that people select between individuals. The practice is that most people vote on party lines. Our constitution, such as it is, doesn't really recognise the primacy of party in voting behaviour. Though party loyalty is waning, in general this still holds true. Many people can tell you the name of the party they voted for, but couldn't name the candidate.

If we really did vote only for individuals, we wouldn't have much clue what sort of government would emerge (bit like PR, I suppose). As it is, we are accustomed to electing people who vote overwhelmingly on party lines, so that the government which emerges is pretty well aligned with the position of the majority party - until they start to drift away from it, but that's another story...

[Gringo]

back onto politics for a while.......

The car lobby have been quite vocal for many years about the stealth tax they face from speed cameras and how these cameras were nothing to do with safety, but all about making money. So faced with the requirements to increase revenue / cut spending, no doubt we can expect to see a lot more of them on the roads.

Speed Cameras Set To Be Switched Off

Thousands of speed cameras could be switched off after the Government slashed cash for road safety by 40%.

According to The Sunday Times, the first county likely to abandon the devices is Oxfordshire, which may shut down its 79 cameras as early as next week.

Other counties could do the same, with camera networks in Devon and Cornwall, Somerset and Northamptonshire also under review, the paper said.

About 6,000 speed cameras across the UK cost motorists an estimated £100m in fines a year. Oxfordshire's network raised more than £1m in 2009.

But the money goes to the Treasury despite local authorities complaining they should be able to keep the proceeds for spending on road safety.

[TrentVilla]

Interesting, they may be the first County but it won't be the first time its happened as Swindon turned theirs of a year ago after the local Conversative council withdrew funding.

Interestingly Swindon announced the results of this last week claiming there has been no increase in accidents as a result.

[peterms]

Interesting, they may be the first County but it won't be the first time its happened as Swindon turned theirs of a year ago after the local Conversative council withdrew funding.

Interestingly Swindon announced the results of this last week claiming there has been no increase in accidents as a result.

They switched off the fixed ones. I gather there were only 4 of them, and they are still operating the mobile speed cameras. Were they ineffective, or does the continuation of the mobile ones restrain speeding?

[blandy]

Can you please show me a ballot paper or a candidate that stood as a Con-Dem or part of any alliance or coalition. Go on show me that please? I suspect even you will not be able to show that, unless good old photoshop is working.

I seem to remember you posting not too long ago that the electorate doesn't vote for the government, they vote for MPs who then form a government.

Abso-flippin-lutely - the fact that any candidate puts a party besides their name means though that if and when they get elected there is a damn good chance that they will follow the party line and at an election this is typically what gets put into the manifesto.

As Peter rightly says though what people voted for and expected as part of the Gvmt is not what they are getting due to this "alliance" "merged" "coalition" call it what you want.

My money is 100% on the fact that no one voted for a Tory / LibDem gvmt following the (harmful) policies that we are seeing at the moment. No one at all voted for a MP that would be a part of this new regime, because it was not an option - hence unelected.

I'm not sure that's totally true - People who voted Lib Dem or Green or UKIP or whatever would have known their prefered selection would not form the Gov't on their own.

If the argument is used that "ah, well these people were just voting for their MP locally" then that doesn't tie in with people simply voting for their prefered party to govern and no other possibility.

And what about people who voted for a party that had no chance in their particular constituency (which is what I did). I didn't want a tory Gov't. I'm slightly less upset that it's a coalition, than just a pure tory gov't, because some of the tory lunacy will be tempered.

At the end of the day, my vote, like millions of others counted for nothing. I didn't get what I voted for. What turned out was voted for and is elected under our system, though, rotten as it is. to use your own words

....what this country stands for is the parliamentary system and how it works...You may not like the outcome but democracy aint always about liking it though is it?