-
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
freethought
Member
Wes said:
JonathanEx
Member
UK PoliGAF Thread of no swingometer can explain this now
Cerebral Assassin
Member
iapetus said:
If you are going to load the question is:
4. Prop up a government that has economic policy run by Letwin & Osbourne, Foreign discussions in the hands of Hague.
Acceptable to you?
I don't see why you fail to understand than people on the left(however marginally) wouldn't be happy to see 2 partys on the right of the spectrum forming a coalition.
Cerebral Assassin said:
You're not answering the question. Give your own non-loaded answer to it, if you think I'm loading them. And point out how I'm loading them, if you really think I am. The options really are that stark, as far as I can see it. Coalition with Con, coalition with Lab, allow a minority Con government in or force a general election. The first is what has happened, the second showed itself to be impossible and wouldn't have given a majority anyway, the third would inevitably break down into the fourth, and the fourth would get nothing done quickly and probably end up with a real Tory majority.
I understand that people on the left don't want to see a right-leaning coalition running the country. Speaking as someone who's always voted Labour or Lib-Dem, I'd prefer to see a viable Labour/Lib-Dem coalition in place. But that wasn't an option given the way the country voted. The only stable coalition government available was the one that we have today, and most of the alternatives I can only see as leading to chaos and wasted time followed, most likely, by a full Conservative majority.
So, I ask the question again. If you don't like what the Lib Dems are doing, what would you have them do that would be better for the country right now? Because if you can't answer that one, you've got no right to complain about what they chose to do.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I agreed with Nick and I agree with iapetus, and I'm shocked to say this, to some extent I agree with blazinglord too.
I didn't want a Tory government, but I think they should be given a chance. They've moved on quite a lot of things, which would have been quite difficult for Cameron & co. The Lib Dems have compromised too of course, I know that a lot of us here had high hopes of full-PR/STV, cuts starting in 2011, Cable as chancellor, etc... but I don't think the doom and gloom is warranted just yet. I'm from Liverpool, so my facebook friend feed is filled with depressed and angry people... I just think that if people stop and think for a moment, they'll see this might not be a bad thing.
There are sound, moderate, liberal voices in this new Government that put us in greater hope of 'fairer' cuts, and gradual reform. A spot of fiscal and social conservatism tempered by social and progressive liberals.
All of the attacks on Clegg, started by the Tory press, are now championed by disillusioned Labour supporters -- its sour grapes in my view. He's put a deal in place, we need to see how it pans out before we judge.
And we have to consider that while a rainbow / progressive coalition would have had liberals giddy in the head, the Tories would have attacked it as a coalition of losers, they would have attacked both parties for giving the country its 2nd unelected prime minister in a row (the fact that we don't elect prime ministers would be lost on most of the public). The Tory press would have ripped such a coalition to shreds. Thats assuming that it wouldn't have collapsed first under the strain from demands made by the likes of the SDLP, SNP and Plaid Cymru during the course of the parliament. If such a coalition had collapsed, and it more than likely would have, the ensuing election would have returned a Tory majority.
If a Tory majority had been returned - we wouldn't have the liberal voices in government, libertarian voices in the home office, an attempt to raise the income tax threshold, a stop on the double millionairre inheritance tax break, the proposal of a PR-elected House of Lords, a referendum on ANY kind of voting reform... this coalition has the potential to change this country for the better, in a way that the alternative coalition almost certainly would not have had a chance to.
And for the Labour party too, this can be a good thing. A spell in opposition is a chance to grow stronger. And to not be a party to the painful decisions ahead.
I didn't want a Tory government, but I think they should be given a chance. They've moved on quite a lot of things, which would have been quite difficult for Cameron & co. The Lib Dems have compromised too of course, I know that a lot of us here had high hopes of full-PR/STV, cuts starting in 2011, Cable as chancellor, etc... but I don't think the doom and gloom is warranted just yet. I'm from Liverpool, so my facebook friend feed is filled with depressed and angry people... I just think that if people stop and think for a moment, they'll see this might not be a bad thing.
There are sound, moderate, liberal voices in this new Government that put us in greater hope of 'fairer' cuts, and gradual reform. A spot of fiscal and social conservatism tempered by social and progressive liberals.
All of the attacks on Clegg, started by the Tory press, are now championed by disillusioned Labour supporters -- its sour grapes in my view. He's put a deal in place, we need to see how it pans out before we judge.
And we have to consider that while a rainbow / progressive coalition would have had liberals giddy in the head, the Tories would have attacked it as a coalition of losers, they would have attacked both parties for giving the country its 2nd unelected prime minister in a row (the fact that we don't elect prime ministers would be lost on most of the public). The Tory press would have ripped such a coalition to shreds. Thats assuming that it wouldn't have collapsed first under the strain from demands made by the likes of the SDLP, SNP and Plaid Cymru during the course of the parliament. If such a coalition had collapsed, and it more than likely would have, the ensuing election would have returned a Tory majority.
If a Tory majority had been returned - we wouldn't have the liberal voices in government, libertarian voices in the home office, an attempt to raise the income tax threshold, a stop on the double millionairre inheritance tax break, the proposal of a PR-elected House of Lords, a referendum on ANY kind of voting reform... this coalition has the potential to change this country for the better, in a way that the alternative coalition almost certainly would not have had a chance to.
And for the Labour party too, this can be a good thing. A spell in opposition is a chance to grow stronger. And to not be a party to the painful decisions ahead.
Many people tend to indirectly want nothing to happen if they can't get nearly everything they want. Because compromise is worse than getting everything, people don't like that there has been a compromise. I'm guessing some thought that joining with Labour would be productive.radioheadrule83 said:
This is a good deal IMO. The concessions in cabinet and policy were really good, I though. I imagine the alternative being a reelection with similar results, or Tory gains, that would be bad in and of itself, and made worse further by leaving the country without a proper government for longer.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade May that all people are equal. She would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?Empty said:
As an aside, that job title sounds bizarre. Are you sure it's "Minister For Women And Equality"?
Edit: Yep, it is. Was renamed by Gordon Brown. Is he a bit sexist? I notice he was proud to announce the majority of students were women (in the TV debate), how would an equality minister feel about this obvious prioritising of gender over aptitude?
Edit 2: Did George Orwell really start a sentence in Animal Farm with a 'but'? must check the original material when I get home.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
iapetus said:
I answered the question yesterday, either Cameron as minority PM, with a statement claiming too many policy differences to fully enter a coalition(although this would be likely a lie for the right-wing Clegg) but with assurances to consider each bill on its merits.(too be honest though if I was a Lib Dem high-up, I wouldn't have shat on the idea of tactical voting, perhaps then they wouldn't have lost seats)
As for your comment that "if you can't answer that you have no right to complain", thats bullshit, I have no idea on how to "fix" the economy, does that mean I shouldn't complain if(when) this coalition fails to do so.
Cerebral Assassin said:
Okay, so if I've navigated that torturous and incomplete sentence correctly, your preferred choice would be to allow a minority Tory government. The obvious arguments against that are:
- It's still putting a Conservative government in power, which is what a lot of people are complaining about with the current move.
- It leaves us with an unstable government that could collapse at any time - bad for economic confidence, among other things.
- None of the Lib Dem policies that I voted for get adopted.
- Another general election would be all but inevitable in a fairly short space of time (remind me of the track record of minority governments in the UK again...) with every likelihood of a Tory majority next time round, and with a near guarantee of a huge collapse in Lib Dem support as a result of tactical voting.
In all likelihood, in the medium term it turns out a hell of a lot worse than the situation you're complaining so bitterly about. The last thing anyone who didn't vote for Cameron wants right now is a majority Tory government.
Cerebral Assassin said:
Your analogy is hideously flawed. This is a case of choosing between a very small number of well-defined options, not setting out to accomplish a complex task. You can't just yell "You did the wrong one of these four things!" without saying which of the others you think would be preferable.
killer_clank
Member
Vince Cable has got business secretary.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
iapetus said:- It's still putting a Conservative government in power, which is what a lot of people are complaining about with the current move.
- It leaves us with an unstable government that could collapse at any time - bad for economic confidence, among other things.
- None of the Lib Dem policies that I voted for get adopted.
- Another general election would be all but inevitable in a fairly short space of time (remind me of the track record of minority governments in the UK again...) with every likelihood of a Tory majority next time round, and with a near guarantee of a huge collapse in Lib Dem support as a result of tactical voting.
In all likelihood, in the medium term it turns out a hell of a lot worse than the situation you're complaining so bitterly about. The last thing anyone who didn't vote for Cameron wants right now is a majority Tory government.
Your analogy is hideously flawed. This is a case of choosing between a very small number of well-defined options, not setting out to accomplish a complex task. You can't just yell "You did the wrong one of these four things!" without saying which of the others you think would be preferable.
You just responded to what "option" I would consider preferable(do I really need to say minority PM again?), not only do we have a Tory PM, he now has a shield from his own party, and will be in power for 5 years, sounds much better than the chance of an election in 6-12 months time, with a new Labour leader without the baggage of Brown & a ineffectual Tory leadership harangued by its party, doesn't it?
As for the collapse of the Libs vote, without Electoral Reform( now unlikely, can you see Labour rank and file voting for something that would give the Lib Dems more seats after this?)thats going to happen anyway, they are likely to lose a chunk of their Anti-Tory vote to Labour( How many Scottish seats do they have? They won't hold many of them)
Cerebral Assassin said:
Yes, it does actually. I don't want 6-12 months of unconstructive chaos with a minority government. I don't believe for a moment that a new leader is instantly going to win Labour back the votes they lost at this last election. I'd prefer that if a Conservative government is in power, it should be one that's held in check by a coalition partner rather than given free reign to legislate as it chooses.
And yes, I know you made it 'clear' which your preferred view was - and made it clear why I think it's a horrible one. I was addressing your incorrect claim that there's no burden to justify criticism of the decision the Lib Dems made.
Cerebral Assassin said:
So you think the majority of the electorate votes in a primarily negative way driven by pettiness and petulance? Are you sure you're not projecting, here?
Probably an old question, but I'm concerned about how Britain turned into an orwellian state during the past few years. You know what I'm talking about, CCTVs, neighborhood vigilance and all this stuff. Should I expect a change now that you have a new parliament/prime minister ? I know the new guy is a conservative, but in a bizarro country where left wing is worse than the french right wing, you know...
Dabookerman
Member
G.O.O. said:
I think.. it will be less so, perhaps? I dunno really
radioheadrule83
Banned
G.O.O. said:
The CCTV problem is over-stated... a lot of it is private, and a lot of it is designed to catch speeding cars. I mean, its not state-surveillance.
In any case, a review / report has already been done to this and a committee set up to look at every piece of invasive reactive legislation since 9/11.
So I think it will get better, but it would have gotten better no matter who was in power. Someone posted the report earlier in this thread I believe.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
iapetus said:
OK, does someone who doesn't vote have the right to complain about the government of the day?
Who said anything about the majority of voters, I was talking about the people who will vote to keep the Tories out( or are you saying these people don't exist/don't vote Lib Dems). As for pettiness & petulance, we are talking about Labour rank & file here, that should be a given.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
defel1111 said:
Define socially liberal, as I can't see any real positives in Theresa May as Home Sec.( aside from the obvious, at least its not Liam Fox)
blazinglord
Member
I know, I'm too delighted that we won't have reactionary backbenchers holding the Cameron project to ransom and taking us back to where we started - outdated and unfit for government.defel1111 said:
Also for all those Lib Dem voters who would have preferred the 'rainbow alliance' - you cannot deny that you did not have sufficient warning. Clegg said time and time again, that he would be prepared to do a deal with the largest party in parliament. And it was never in doubt that the Conservatives were going to be the largest party! Gordon Brown was probably the only person in the country who thought he might still win the election.
Well firstly, liberal policy isn't just about stances on gay issues. Secondly, it has been confirmed that there will be Lib Dems ministers in the Home Office. Thirdly, I can't really foresee Theresa May suddenly outlawing homosexuality and bringing back capital punishment - Cameron clearly wants the Lib Dems' support, he would sooner sack May than allow May to start going on a right-wing crusade. Lastly, it is obvious that May was a token appointment to appease criticism of the lack of female representation. Personally, I would have liked David Davis or Chris Huhne to have been Home Secretary. But I don't think that May's appointment is going to be the disaster or a setback for the gay movement the pink times is making it out to be.Cerebral Assassin said:
Cerebral Assassin
Member
blazinglord said:
So why are you only talking about gay rights?
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
freethought said:
The organization of the UK and parliamentary government in general are just alien to how we think. I didn't fully understand the structure of the UK government and what "England" was until I figured out why Scotland and Wales had their own national football teams.
Ugh, Nick Robinson "thank you Prime Minister" when he pointed to him, toadying up already. Gary Gibbon didn't do that.
Anyway, I feel very optimistic today. I know some awful things have happened, May as Home Scretary, Fox as Defence Secretary, but Clegg and Cameron seem genuinely committed to the coalition and it's aims. This is not the marriage of convenience I expected last week.
Anyway, I feel very optimistic today. I know some awful things have happened, May as Home Scretary, Fox as Defence Secretary, but Clegg and Cameron seem genuinely committed to the coalition and it's aims. This is not the marriage of convenience I expected last week.
UK PoliGAF Thread of LibCon formulate keikaku (keikaku means compromise)
UK PoliGAF Thread of strong stable government in the national interest
UK PoliGAF Thread of the internetz hating Cameron
UK PoliGAF Thread of Lib Dems going casual and abandoning the hardcore
UK PoliGAF Thread of Cameron eating crow
UK PoliGAF Thread of making thread titles is more fun than revision
UK PoliGAF Thread of strong stable government in the national interest
UK PoliGAF Thread of the internetz hating Cameron
UK PoliGAF Thread of Lib Dems going casual and abandoning the hardcore
UK PoliGAF Thread of Cameron eating crow
UK PoliGAF Thread of making thread titles is more fun than revision
Five years straight away is bullshit. Let us vote again within the year. THEN give us five years of whoever we vote back in.
Admittedly i have laughed a couple times at this conference, and i do look forward to seeing what the LibCon coalition will bring. I'm going in with an open mind anyway.
EDIT: And Downing St could use some new back doors.
EDIT 2: However, if we voted with in the year. What the hell would we be voting for? They haven't merged parties, but i'm guessing the LibDem and Tory seats would just all group together for the majority?
Admittedly i have laughed a couple times at this conference, and i do look forward to seeing what the LibCon coalition will bring. I'm going in with an open mind anyway.
EDIT: And Downing St could use some new back doors.
EDIT 2: However, if we voted with in the year. What the hell would we be voting for? They haven't merged parties, but i'm guessing the LibDem and Tory seats would just all group together for the majority?
TheHeretic
Banned
Well from what I can see this was supposed to be (and almost became) a conservative run UK. Now you have liberals controlling the party taming its more exaggerated elements, which seems like a win from that expectation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked