jamieson87
Member
Sorry man, I sounded like a dick there.Chinner said:
I can see Clegg getting it tight if PR is not part of the deal. Not all his own fault if it is not.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF: General election thread of LibCon Coalitionage
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
- Status
I can see Clegg getting it tight if PR is not part of the deal. Not all his own fault if it is not.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Clever girl...Gary Whitta said:
The Friendly Monster
Member
Vote for Clegg...get Cameron
mother fuckers...
mother fuckers...
jamieson87
Member
Newspapers choice of pictures for the leaders has not ceased to amaze me througout this campaign.Gary Whitta said:
Cammy looking smug as fuck
Gordo smiling looking confident.
Clegg with head bowed, slightly embarresed?
brain_stew
Member
MarshMellow96 said:
Stop making shitty groups!? I'm very left leaning and have traditionally have quite a strong hatred towards the Tories (which I've expressed numerous times in this thread) but currently a coalition between the Lib Dems and the Tories is the only way we'll get a stable government and not have to go back to the polls in 12 months. Given the current status of the economy having another election so soon would be simply disatorous, and to simply oppose such talks even happening for shitty tribal and ideological reasons is abhorant and not in the national interest in shape or form.
If the Tories are willing to bend on key issues, then there's no good reason to oppose any agreement if it happens. The fantasy of a coalition with Labour, Lib Dems, the greens, the nationalists and the SDLP being anything more than one of the biggest political disasters in history is simply laughable. Its a terrible idea, it will never work and will lead to chaos. If Labour and the LDs could go it alone then it would be completely different, but they can't so the option isnt even on the table as far as I'm concerned. Its nothing but silly fantasy.
Chinner said:
We have a very similar situation here in Canada, the public here is still largely not approving of 'back room' coalitions.
And the far left party have zero interest to work with the Conservative minority here, though both the Bloc Quebecois and New Democrats reached an 'agreement' to support the minority government through successive elections and never supported Liberal motions of no confidence.
brain_stew
Member
PJV3 said:
He's met both and they both endorsed the talks.
Nicktendo86
Member
brain_stew said:
Could not have put it better myself. Do people not realise we are in the shit here? The deficit MUST be reduced and our finances must be put back on track. Now is not the time for indulgent political ideology, we need a stable government and the only way we can get a stable government at the moment is with a Tory/Lib Dem coalition. They are not taking this lightly and they are not selling out, it is for the national interest.
another boring day of the news reporting that they have nothing to report.
I switched on BBC news maybe twice today and nothing had happened in 8 hours.
Also, they seem to be running out of "experts" to talk to. I think one of the guests was a BBC political researcher today.
I switched on BBC news maybe twice today and nothing had happened in 8 hours.
Also, they seem to be running out of "experts" to talk to. I think one of the guests was a BBC political researcher today.
People on Facebook and the Guardian whining about the Lib Dems forming a coalition with the "dirty Tories" is hilarious. SHOCK HORROR! Lib Dems not acting as a poodle to the loser Labour party after Brown and Mandelson did all that sucking up to them as a "progressive" (translation: "anyone but Tory") alliance.
Clegg said numerous times that he'd back the party with the biggest mandate to govern. The Conservatives have the largest popular vote AND largest number of seats. He's sticking to his word. Nick Clegg and David Cameron are smashing the tribal mould of British politics. They are both looking to form a stable government in the national interest, rather than in the petty interests of their individual parties.
The way the Lib Dem and Conservative teams have quietly and professionally conducted their talks over the past few days, has been highly impressive and a sign that a LibCon government will be well-run, without constant briefing and leaks to the 24 hour media, very much unlike the shambles of the past 13 years of New Labour.
The Liberal Conservatives. The Change Coalition.
Not a Coalition of the Losers.
Get used to it Guardianistas.
Clegg said numerous times that he'd back the party with the biggest mandate to govern. The Conservatives have the largest popular vote AND largest number of seats. He's sticking to his word. Nick Clegg and David Cameron are smashing the tribal mould of British politics. They are both looking to form a stable government in the national interest, rather than in the petty interests of their individual parties.
The way the Lib Dem and Conservative teams have quietly and professionally conducted their talks over the past few days, has been highly impressive and a sign that a LibCon government will be well-run, without constant briefing and leaks to the 24 hour media, very much unlike the shambles of the past 13 years of New Labour.
The Liberal Conservatives. The Change Coalition.
Not a Coalition of the Losers.
Get used to it Guardianistas.
Dave Cam has sold out your party, will not be able to implement the majority of changes he envisioned, will effectively run a caretaker government to enact cuts for the period of the recession and at the end run a referendum to put them out of power for eternity. You're happy about this? Maybe this coalition can work after all. :loljas0nuk said:
Gary Whitta
Member
Change Coalition :lol :lol :lol
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I really hope Clegg can get electoral reform in either way. Hopefully a change in the motherland will get Canada to kick start its numerous failed electoral reform campaigns.
I do find it amusing that Brown is just clinging to power though. Dude should just bow out gracefully. Everything that's happening now is like a replay of what happened over here 5 years ago. :lol
I do find it amusing that Brown is just clinging to power though. Dude should just bow out gracefully. Everything that's happening now is like a replay of what happened over here 5 years ago. :lol
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
jas0nuk said:
Did the Tories win the election? If not, what is someone called when they do not win?
Don't start with him guys, he's not worth it.
All I'll say is - congratulations. If the Conservatives and Lib Dems form a coalition, as we all believe they will, then, in the words of Maggie herself, "Rejoice". You did it, well done, never mind the poor and the needy for the next four or five years, disregard the NHS and the BBC's existences, and as for proper electoral reform, who cares? Your tribe got in! Tax breaks for the rich, hooray! Fox hunting with dogs, tally-ho! Celebrate!
Oh, yeah - and get ready to enjoy some very interesting times.
All I'll say is - congratulations. If the Conservatives and Lib Dems form a coalition, as we all believe they will, then, in the words of Maggie herself, "Rejoice". You did it, well done, never mind the poor and the needy for the next four or five years, disregard the NHS and the BBC's existences, and as for proper electoral reform, who cares? Your tribe got in! Tax breaks for the rich, hooray! Fox hunting with dogs, tally-ho! Celebrate!
Oh, yeah - and get ready to enjoy some very interesting times.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Dambrosi said:
Enough with the fictional scaremongering already.
The poor and needy, the NHS, the BBC are under no more threat with this lot than they would be under Labour.
Sure there are going to be cuts. Huge and unpalateable ones. But what could Labour have done? Spend all this money that they haven't got?
It will be interesting to see what Labour says in opposition. Whether they pretend that somehow there would have been no cuts under them (which the electorate would see right through), or that they could somehow make cuts without anyone noticing (which the electorate will see right through), whether they claim that their cuts would have affected everything except this or that flavour of the month or whether they say that they would somehow make the same level of cuts only nicely? Sure. Let me cut you, but I'll do it nicely.
There's only one way to do cuts right. That's to cut hard, cut fast and cut deep enough so you only have to do it once. There's nothing so debilitating to an organisation as the knowledge and fear that the axeman is going to come again next year and again the year after that. Salami-slicing won't do it.
Sure, there will be losers. I might be one of them. That doesn't make it wrong.
As for tax cuts for the rich - I take it meaning the inheritance tax stuff - there's a strong argument for doing this sort of thing, which lies in preventing taxes intended for the rich ever becoming a tax on the poor. Look at the taxation on benefits in kind (all the P11D stuff) - it was originally intended as a way of punishing rich tax-avoiders, those who could afford to buy two houses a year out of disposable income, but through government inaction over the years the threshold for so-called 'high-earners' is stuck at something like £8,500 which is less than the minimum wage.
That should have been adjusted over the years to keep pace, but instead it has crept down to the point where it is a tax on pretty well everybody - and the successive governments just took that extra money and spent it. And now if you propose changing it the cry is 'the money has to come from somewhere'. Well, the money doesn't have to come from somewhere at all - the alternative is to not spend it. And we're about to find out what that means.
If at any stage a government had decided to raise the threshold it would have been 'tax cuts for the rich'. But it still would have been the right thing to do.
brain_stew
Member
firehawk12 said:
We need an interim prime minister, he's just doing his constitutional duty. If there was a terrorist attack on the country or an international crisis we need a government to deal with it and thats why Brown and his team are there. There's no "clinging onto power" he knows he'll be stepping down soon.
brain_stew
Member
Dambrosi said:Don't start with him guys, he's not worth it.
All I'll say is - congratulations. If the Conservatives and Lib Dems form a coalition, as we all believe they will, then, in the words of Maggie herself, "Rejoice". You did it, well done, never mind the poor and the needy for the next four or five years, disregard the NHS and the BBC's existences, and as for proper electoral reform, who cares? Your tribe got in! Tax breaks for the rich, hooray! Fox hunting with dogs, tally-ho! Celebrate!
Oh, yeah - and get ready to enjoy some very interesting times.
Smh. Enough with the paranoia all ready. The Tories are going to run a government one way or other, at least with Lib Dem cooperation we'll get some nice progressive policies implemented and different points of view at cabinet meetings. All this tribal BS needs to stop, the last thing we need right now is another election and the only thing that it would bring is a Tory majority anyway. Give me a moderate Tory government with Lib Dem involvement to keep them in check over a majority Tory government ran by the parties hardliners. Cameron is 100x better than some of the crazy fucks in the party and his conduct since the election has proven that.
brain_stew
Member
Its obviously open to abuse but a poll on the GMTV website is showing 77% in favour of electoral reform. I definitely think it'd be passed at a referendum, even with the Tories and the right wing press campaigning against it.
brain_stew said:
Stable government with the Lib Dems? ha! the moment an important dividing issue comes up in parliament the coalition will collapse, then the tories will collapse in on each other (aforementioned crazy fucks will attack the tory progressives), it wont be as a smooth and nice as you think.
There's going to be another election in 12 months regardless of what outcome is arrived to here. The tories are still fractured as hell, cameron just smoothed over the cracks with plaster (to get into power), with a bit of stress those cracks will show again.
brain_stew
Member
Xavien said:
No other scenario is going to going to deliver a government that can last for even 12 months and with the state of the public finances we need a stable government for as long as possible. With an agreement between the Tories and Lib Dems there's enough leeway in terms of seats for a few backbenchers (from both parties) going off the rails not to be enough to topple the government. Its the only scenario that can work and therefore we need to make it work. For all my dislike of the Tories, I have to hand it to Cameron, he seems to grasp this point, a point which many in his party (and heck most in the country for that matter) don't seem to understand.
brain_stew
Member
phisheep said:
Its a complete sea change to the politics of old for many and I understand that its a shock to the system (it was for me, intitially) but make no mistake, its long overdue. A government that represents the view of as much of the elctorate as possible can only be a good thing, surely? Political decisions and vote cast on policy, compromise and discussion than promitive tribalistic urges has to be a step forward, no?
brain_stew
Member
Jexhius said:
So you'd rather give a party voted in by only ~1/4-1/5 of the population 100% unchecked control instead? I'd say having some of the policies of more than one party represented makes a lot more sense and is not as open to abuse.
Jex
Member
brain_stew said:
I don't think just increasing representation, without check, is the correct solution either. That obviously leads to the problem of having far too many parties in an unstable situation. But our current system certainly goes too far the other way.
It's the same reason why you wouldn't want to make the system 'as democratic as possible'. because that would involve a referendum on every issue which isn't feasible in large scale democracies.
brain_stew
Member
Looking like something more than a confidence and supply agreement is on the cards judging by the way the players are talking today.
TheHeretic
Banned
Mr. Sam said:
Why not the Conservative Liberal Hard Right Centrist Party?
Dambrosi said:
And what's your plan? Going down the very path that led places like Greece to where it is now with unsustainable largesse? The poor and needy stay poor and needy under eternal handouts, whereas under a good economy their conditions improve greatly.
I'd be interested to know what UK-Gaf thought of Thatcher. Because the general thought where I live is that she saved Blighty with tough reform and gave it a strong economy. Please don't hurt me... :lol
brain_stew
Member
Just for fun, if the Lib Dems do get some cabinet ministers who do we think will have a new job? Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Simon Hughes? Space for anyone else? I doubt it'd happen but I'd love to see cable as chancellor, I'd feel a lot more comfortable going forward if that happens. Can't say I have much confidence in George Osborne.
brain_stew
Member
Ventron said:
Run..........quick..................
There'll be parties in the street around most parts of the UK when Thatcher finally pops her clogs and yes I'm deadly serious.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Ventron said:
Pushing a cripple out of their wheelchair to force them to learn to walk themselves. Physiotherapy: the Maggie Thatcher way.
And obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smv8MI2q29g
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
brain_stew said:
I could see Laws in Education, Clegg at the Home Office (nasty job but someone has to do it, and besides it is in desperate need of someone blessed with common sense). Hughes I'm not so sure about. Perhaps Cable as First Secretary.
Just for even more fun - what if it gets a bit broader than that?
I could see Alistair Darling being offered Chancellor or perhaps First Secretary. It would be interesting in terms of continuity, and in view of the bullets sent his way from Labour he may find he has more friends in the coalition.
Hey, if we're going to play consensus politics, lets go the whole hog - and the impact of having all three finance guys in place would do wonders. Besides, two of them wouldn't be Osbourne.
brain_stew
Member
Actually David Laws is who I meant originally not Simon Hughes, and yeah he'd get education. I think that'd be pretty closed to nailed on if a coalition does happen.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ventron said:
I tend to agree. She did a great deal of hard but necessary stuff, and has taken an enormous amount of mostly unjustified personal flak for it which now, all these years on, seems utterly distasteful.
And yeah, I lived through it all and the preceding years and took a lot of the pain that went with it. It was still mostly the right thing to do.
She did let herself down badly with the whole poll tax thing, and it is interesting to speculate what would have happened had her cabinet 'wets' been coalition members rather than people in her own party - I suspect things would have come to a head a whole lot sooner and have been forgotten by now.
killer_clank
Member
Definitely looks like something is going to happen today.
freethought
Member
brain_stew, you're being idiotic. What's going on here is the same kind of back-room politics we've had for years. THere's nothing but old politics going on here. Unless you think the Lib Dems betraying almost every one of their campaing pledges just to get into government is new.
And whoever's told you that a Con/Lib deal is the only way to prevent a financial meltdown is full of shit. THey're wrong, dead wrong. We have a massive defecit, it'll take decades to sort out and a few months of political bargaining and a second general in a year or so is not going to send Britain into turmoil, it isn't and whoever says it is is either a liar or a fool. We just had a general election, we didn't descend into a second recession, did we?
Stability. Christ I hate that word.
And whoever's told you that a Con/Lib deal is the only way to prevent a financial meltdown is full of shit. THey're wrong, dead wrong. We have a massive defecit, it'll take decades to sort out and a few months of political bargaining and a second general in a year or so is not going to send Britain into turmoil, it isn't and whoever says it is is either a liar or a fool. We just had a general election, we didn't descend into a second recession, did we?
Stability. Christ I hate that word.
blazinglord
Member
What I don't understand with all these Labour tribalists joining various groups and making their opposition to a Lib/Con pact loud and clear is why on earth didn't they vote for Labour? Labour promised electoral reform on their manifesto! People who voted for the Liberal Democrats would (should) have been voting for a Liberal ideology (both economically and socially) and a leader who explicitly said that he would talk to the party with the most seats and the most votes which was obviously going to be the Tories!
There is far more common ground economically between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives than there is between the LDems and Labour. If it wasn't for the sticking point of electoral reform, I think the Cameroon Tories would be a natural partner for the Liberal Democrats than Labour who half the LDems parliamentary party view as wedded to 'soggy socialism'.
There is far more common ground economically between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives than there is between the LDems and Labour. If it wasn't for the sticking point of electoral reform, I think the Cameroon Tories would be a natural partner for the Liberal Democrats than Labour who half the LDems parliamentary party view as wedded to 'soggy socialism'.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked