Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

if there was a minority there would be outrage

why? The logical move was a minority gvmt based on principles that all of the parties put forward in the run in to the election. As it is now we have the LibDems that have joined the Tory party amended the constitution in order that they can enjoy themselves in power.

Cameron won most seats, he did not have a majority, and as such that showed what the UK people were saying that it was a balanced election. With the LibDem merging with the Tory party and the constitution changes we now have a dictatorship - one for AWOL here, Zimbabwe? :wink: (Note: they have even stopped E-Petitions it seems - Link )

[mjmooney]

The LibDems have sold out and now are effectively part of the Tory party, and as such we are back to a two party setup in the UK.

It's certainly a dilemma for the left-leaning Lib Dem rank-and-file.

Join New New Labour? Or start up New Lib Dems?

[wiganvillain]

I do love this spin being put out that this fledgeling coalition is the effective absorption of the Lib Dems into the Tories.

It's been in place for what.... 3 days at most and already the Campbell / Mandy attack hounds are letting us know the "Truth" or at least their version of it.

If it wasn't so predictable it'd be hilarious

[snowychap]

Seems the "outraged" of VT are seemingly happy with this rule change in the constitution...

Who are they?

It would be nice to know so we can see when they respond to your accusation.

[snowychap]

the point I was trying to make was how do Libs and Tories spend 5 years working together in parliament and then suddenly at the next election they have to campaign against each other

What happens in other countries where they have coalition governments?

It's probably a better idea to look at those with the experience of this kind of government to see what will (or could/should/might) happen rather than looking at it purely in terms of how we have always done things.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they'll campaign positively on their policies rather than negatively about the policies of others (whilst still being critical of them if necessary).

[drat01]

Wigan - why the Labour reference - this is nothing to do with them. As for "attack hounds" people like Adonis are not exactly in that mould now are they? The point is as Mike makes reference to in his post, the Left/Centre element of the LibDems, which in the past have been the most in terms of numbers are now without a voice. Look at QT last night and the comments from the LibDem guy which basically said "**** off we are in power for 5 years with the Tory party and nothing will change that".

There is a large number of LibDem supporters who now feel disenfranchised with their party and maybe as Mike says they will look to branch out, which will then further weaken this merger between Clegg and Cameron's parties. The words coming from both Clegg and Cameron are pretty clear

[kidlewis]

do you think that as a result of this 5 year fixed parliament that the coalition government is aiming to sort out a lot of this mess in under 4 years? because they will be very unpopular with the necessary cuts and tax rises that need to happen.

perhaps they are gambling on being able to give us something back before the next election to try and give the people confidence in that they have sorted out the majority of the crisis.

[drat01]

KL - if by chance what you say happens, what then for the ConDem party? - does it return back to its two separate identities and policies? How can it?

[Gringo]

the point I was trying to make was how do Libs and Tories spend 5 years working together in parliament and then suddenly at the next election they have to campaign against each other

What happens in other countries where they have coalition governments?

It's probably a better idea to look at those with the experience of this kind of government to see what will (or could/should/might) happen rather than looking at it purely in terms of how we have always done things.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they'll campaign positively on their policies rather than negatively about the policies of others (whilst still being critical of them if necessary).

This - just what I was about to post.

[wiganvillain]

Drat,

My issue is that it would seem we're trying something new and different in our government and rather than give it a chance and lets see whether it falls, fails or (seemingly worst case scenario) It Works.

The "Labour" element are intent on attacking it immediately and working to make sure it doesn't work.

Cynical spin as far as I'm concerned and typical of the way labour have looked at everything in the world which doesn't go their way over the last several years.

I know you can't see that because you believe deeply in Labour and I admire you for that but when the default position of labour supporters is "It's not what we want and therefore completely wrong" I struggle to take any pronouncements seriously

[Gringo]

The LibDems have sold out and now are effectively part of the Tory party, and as such we are back to a two party setup in the UK.

It's certainly a dilemma for the left-leaning Lib Dem rank-and-file.

Join New New Labour? Or start up New Lib Dems?

Neither. They have been lib dems in the wilderness for 35 years since their last flirtation with coallition, no one is going anywhere. Why would you form an offshoot with even less chance of exerting influence / gaining power.

[Gringo]

KL - if by chance what you say happens, what then for the ConDem party? - does it return back to its two separate identities and policies? How can it?

Why not? We know what their different policies are at the moment; they have stated what areas they are compromising on for the duration of this parliament, but it doesn't change the policies they want to implement. As snowy said, if they campaign nicely on the strength of their policies instead of calling each other nazi or nasty.

[kidlewis]

KL - if by chance what you say happens, what then for the ConDem party? - does it return back to its two separate identities and policies? How can it?

well lets be honest people talk about NuLab being Left and the Tories being right, when if you infact look at history they are both closer to the center than any left or right wing party.

I think what you might find is that they could campaign together on policies they agree on (example being civil liberties with them both agreeing to scrap id cards, regulate cctv more heavily and also remove aspects of the DNA database and retaining digital data).

Where they differ they would make more of an issue of this and those differences would be more focused on as being the difference.

What would be interesting (and I don't know how it would be done in terms of voting) would be to tick a box somewhere saying you would prefer a con-lib coalition if it ends up with a hung parliament again.

[mjmooney]

The LibDems have sold out and now are effectively part of the Tory party, and as such we are back to a two party setup in the UK.

It's certainly a dilemma for the left-leaning Lib Dem rank-and-file.

Join New New Labour? Or start up New Lib Dems?

Neither. They have been lib dems in the wilderness for 35 years since their last flirtation with coallition, no one is going anywhere. Why would you form an offshoot with even less chance of exerting influence / gaining power.

Principles?

[wiganvillain]

Seriously Mike,

Principles - when referring to Politicians.

Party members perhaps but career politicians choke on that word

edited for atrocious spelling mistake

[kidlewis]

what annoys me the most about this coalition is the media. They want it to fail, failure sells papers not success.

It's like with the world cup, you watch the sleazy stories and other stuff about players surface in the next month, I don't give a shit what the papers say, their articles certainly don't want England to win the world cup. Remember them headlining a story about the players gambling thousands in the hotel room at the last world cup (or the one before) where owen bet £50k in a game of poker with other players.

It will be the same with this coalition government, they want to know what divides the coalition and only that, not what brings them together, where there IS agreement. They will want to try and fragment wherever possible because it sells papers. Even Murdcock will probably want this because it's in his interest to do so.

I have yet to see an article where it talks positively about the coming together of the parties, looking at the brighter side of the picture than the darker.

The Question Time audience in yesterdays episode were clearly retarded, one juvenile actually said that the 'referendum on AV would be voted against'. I felt like jumping into my computer and saying 'DO YOU KNOW WHAT A **** REFERENDUM IS YOU RETARD!?'

the tories can campaign against it all they like I still think it will get passed. I want AV, it's a step in the right direction and I think whilst everyone is talking about how it will damage the tories, unless labour somehow changes direction (not sure where because going back to the left will kill them off forever, and moving any more to the center makes them even more right than the tories) they will be the ones that could lose out. It all depends on these next 5 years.

[tonyh29]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they'll campaign positively on their policies

But what policies ?? for example the Lib Dem scrap Trident policy has now become a Con-Lib policy of keeping trident but ensuring it is monitored and gives value for money or whatever it is they have agreed on ... and which one will the Libs be putting in their next manifesto ?

[drat01]

Wigan

I have two major objections to what has happened already - and this has **** all to do with Labour so why mention that again? - also Spin, sorry but that is just a silly comment, IMO

1) The 55% rule - never mentioned in any manifesto, and subsequently objected to by many people. A fundamental change to the constitution. The 55% figure is "conveniently" setup to ensure that they cannot be challenged - if this had been any other party there would have been outrage

2) I'm a big supporter of electoral reform, which ultimately may mean more and more coalition style politics, BUT that should not result in the erosion of voter's rights.

You say we are trying something new and different but that was NOT what the people had as options when they chose who to vote for. The fundamental differences between LibDem and Tory policy and personnel were there just a few days ago. To see those differences conveniently ignored and in many cases steamrollered out of the way is a dangerous way of running the country. This has nowt to do with Labour. As said interesting to see and hear from Sheffield the problems that LibDem party are experiencing now as a result of this merging of the two parties at a national level

[kidlewis]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they'll campaign positively on their policies

But what policies ?? for example the Lib Dem scrap Trident policy has now become a Con-Lib policy of keeping trident but ensuring it is monitored and gives value for money or whatever it is they have agreed on ... and which one will the Libs be putting in their next manifesto ?

well if you remember the tv debates they didn't actually say they would scrap nuclear deterrent but that trident was 'outdated and didn't offer value for money' (or something to that effect).

Clegg was talking about looking at alternatives to try and save money.

so perhaps there is more of an agreement than people think on this new trident policy.

people see trident as still existing and think 'tories won that one' when in fact Lib dems are obviously getting leeway on looking into alternatives, to save money, something which Cameron possibly pulled his party towards.

these policies aren't as black and white as the beeb make out on their website, even though Lord Failner seemed to think it was when he quoted that beeb article.

[kidlewis]

Wigan

I have two major objections to what has happened already - and this has **** all to do with Labour so why mention that again? - also Spin, sorry but that is just a silly comment, IMO

1) The 55% rule - never mentioned in any manifesto, and subsequently objected to by many people. A fundamental change to the constitution. The 55% figure is "conveniently" setup to ensure that they cannot be challenged - if this had been any other party there would have been outrage

2) I'm a big supporter of electoral reform, which ultimately may mean more and more coalition style politics, BUT that should not result in the erosion of voter's rights.

You say we are trying something new and different but that was NOT what the people had as options when they chose who to vote for. The fundamental differences between LibDem and Tory policy and personnel were there just a few days ago. To see those differences conveniently ignored and in many cases steamrollered out of the way is a dangerous way of running the country. This has nowt to do with Labour. As said interesting to see and hear from Sheffield the problems that LibDem party are experiencing now as a result of this merging of the two parties at a national level

is this 55% not to prevent tories and lib dem MPs who oppose the coalition voting against them?

a single majority can still motion no confidence but this 55% is to merely prevent 1) the tories calling an election whenever they feel like (when it's best for them to do so, and screwing over the lib dems) and also preventing these internal opposer's to a coalition biting their noses off to spite their face.

that is how I see it.