Question time 13/05/2010

15 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
long before i was born and probably long after i`m gone
history has proved that anyone party elected was not up to the job
so why not give a union of two parties a chance i`m sure most marriages are successful based on one keeping the other in check on certain issues one being better with money than another so only time will tell

I think the existence of the national health service stands as testament to how wrong you are......no coalition would/could have pushed through the legislation needed

15 May 2010

Quote by two-4-more
Hmmmmmmmm, musn't be watching the same programme. Seems to be plenty of support for the Coalition in the audience.
Would your viewpoint have been the same had the LibDems got into bed with Labour?

Depends on how many of their key electoral policies were thrown by the wayside to get into power... from what has been said on here and in the interviews and news and reports i have seen through the last few days, labour didn't want to water down its promises and so hence the situation we see today.
So you don't believe in compromise then?
Depends upon whether it is a key promise that was aimed at your "regular" voting public... issues that you argued whole heartedly saying how wrong all the others were about it.
For example: -
The immigration policy of the lib dems... amnesty for immigrants has now become a "immigration" cap.
David Cameron's idea of a political joke "Nick Clegg" now becoming his bosom buddy
Lib Dems Proportional representation becoming a referendum on A.V. which will be blocked before it even becomes policy...
So, when the compromise is a complete step down - No
So one has to ask, What was the alternative? What do you believe should have been done?
The tories should have been made to go it alone, then nobody would have made any concessions or drop any key policies. What better way to ensure conservative (pardon the pun) policies. What better way to ensure they do whats best for the country. No extreme policies could be made without having at least some of all the parties onside.
It may not have been ideal but hey, who cares nobody sells ut the people who voted for them. In this lifetime no-one will be able to trust clegg again... Vote clegg - Get cameron!
Cameron has done the best out of the deal as any policy the lib dems want in his party can agree to "put it through" but then note vote for it.
They would have had to drop most of their policys if they had tried that, as they do not have enough a majority and can not vote any policy's through dunno

15 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

The people got the government they voted for, you may argue that is due to the way we vote, and how the votes are counted, but that has been in place some time now.
At this early stage, I like it. I hope to see Cameron use this to get rid of some of his right wing baggage and policy's and take on the good ones fro the liberals. If he plays this right, he can move to the centre ground and keep Labour out for a very long time indeed! In my humble view that is. wink

15 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

Are we getting the the crux again, class problems. I think you may have expressed a similar view when we discussed fox hunting. Forgive me if I have missread you
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/305150.html

15 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Hmmmmmmmm, musn't be watching the same programme. Seems to be plenty of support for the Coalition in the audience.
Would your viewpoint have been the same had the LibDems got into bed with Labour?

Depends on how many of their key electoral policies were thrown by the wayside to get into power... from what has been said on here and in the interviews and news and reports i have seen through the last few days, labour didn't want to water down its promises and so hence the situation we see today.
So you don't believe in compromise then?
Depends upon whether it is a key promise that was aimed at your "regular" voting public... issues that you argued whole heartedly saying how wrong all the others were about it.
For example: -
The immigration policy of the lib dems... amnesty for immigrants has now become a "immigration" cap.
David Cameron's idea of a political joke "Nick Clegg" now becoming his bosom buddy
Lib Dems Proportional representation becoming a referendum on A.V. which will be blocked before it even becomes policy...
So, when the compromise is a complete step down - No
So one has to ask, What was the alternative? What do you believe should have been done?
The tories should have been made to go it alone, then nobody would have made any concessions or drop any key policies. What better way to ensure conservative (pardon the pun) policies. What better way to ensure they do whats best for the country. No extreme policies could be made without having at least some of all the parties onside.
It may not have been ideal but hey, who cares nobody sells ut the people who voted for them. In this lifetime no-one will be able to trust clegg again... Vote clegg - Get cameron!
Cameron has done the best out of the deal as any policy the lib dems want in his party can agree to "put it through" but then note vote for it.
They would have had to drop most of their policys if they had tried that, as they do not have enough a majority and can not vote any policy's through dunno

Yup it would have seriously restricted what they could do and thats how we voted. If we as a country had wanted them to have full control we would have given it to them. they had the small majority, it was up to them to work it the best they could. Which is what they did... worked it enough that they got a lib dem sell out to help them take control.

15 May 2010

Quote by two-4-more
Hmmmmmmmm, musn't be watching the same programme. Seems to be plenty of support for the Coalition in the audience.
Would your viewpoint have been the same had the LibDems got into bed with Labour?

Depends on how many of their key electoral policies were thrown by the wayside to get into power... from what has been said on here and in the interviews and news and reports i have seen through the last few days, labour didn't want to water down its promises and so hence the situation we see today.
So you don't believe in compromise then?
Depends upon whether it is a key promise that was aimed at your "regular" voting public... issues that you argued whole heartedly saying how wrong all the others were about it.
For example: -
The immigration policy of the lib dems... amnesty for immigrants has now become a "immigration" cap.
David Cameron's idea of a political joke "Nick Clegg" now becoming his bosom buddy
Lib Dems Proportional representation becoming a referendum on A.V. which will be blocked before it even becomes policy...
So, when the compromise is a complete step down - No
So one has to ask, What was the alternative? What do you believe should have been done?
The tories should have been made to go it alone, then nobody would have made any concessions or drop any key policies. What better way to ensure conservative (pardon the pun) policies. What better way to ensure they do whats best for the country. No extreme policies could be made without having at least some of all the parties onside.
It may not have been ideal but hey, who cares nobody sells ut the people who voted for them. In this lifetime no-one will be able to trust clegg again... Vote clegg - Get cameron!
Cameron has done the best out of the deal as any policy the lib dems want in his party can agree to "put it through" but then note vote for it.
They would have had to drop most of their policys if they had tried that, as they do not have enough a majority and can not vote any policy's through dunno

Yup it would have seriously restricted what they could do and thats how we voted. If we as a country had wanted them to have full control we would have given it to them. they had the small majority, it was up to them to work it the best they could. Which is what they did... worked it enough that they got a lib dem sell out to help them take control.
If they can't get any policy's through then the government collapses and we are back to another election, no good at all in the current climate

15 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

The people got the government they voted for, you may argue that is due to the way we vote, and how the votes are counted, but that has been in place some time now.
At this early stage, I like it. I hope to see Cameron use this to get rid of some of his right wing baggage and policy's and take on the good ones fro the liberals. If he plays this right, he can move to the centre ground and keep Labour out for a very long time indeed! In my humble view that is. wink

I didn't get the government I voted for. Who are these 'people' of whom you speak?

15 May 2010

Quote by awayman
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

The people got the government they voted for, you may argue that is due to the way we vote, and how the votes are counted, but that has been in place some time now.
At this early stage, I like it. I hope to see Cameron use this to get rid of some of his right wing baggage and policy's and take on the good ones fro the liberals. If he plays this right, he can move to the centre ground and keep Labour out for a very long time indeed! In my humble view that is. wink

I didn't get the government I voted for. Who are these 'people' of whom you speak?
We did not vote for a government, we voted for candidates/seats. The way people voted across the country left us in the situation we are in now.
Like I said, that's my humble view

15 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

The people got the government they voted for, you may argue that is due to the way we vote, and how the votes are counted, but that has been in place some time now.
At this early stage, I like it. I hope to see Cameron use this to get rid of some of his right wing baggage and policy's and take on the good ones fro the liberals. If he plays this right, he can move to the centre ground and keep Labour out for a very long time indeed! In my humble view that is. wink

I didn't get the government I voted for. Who are these 'people' of whom you speak?
We did not vote for a government, we voted for candidates/seats. The way people voted across the country left us in the situation we are in now.
Like I said, that's my humble view
You are quite correct Blue.

15 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Hmmmmmmmm, musn't be watching the same programme. Seems to be plenty of support for the Coalition in the audience.
Would your viewpoint have been the same had the LibDems got into bed with Labour?

Depends on how many of their key electoral policies were thrown by the wayside to get into power... from what has been said on here and in the interviews and news and reports i have seen through the last few days, labour didn't want to water down its promises and so hence the situation we see today.
So you don't believe in compromise then?
Depends upon whether it is a key promise that was aimed at your "regular" voting public... issues that you argued whole heartedly saying how wrong all the others were about it.
For example: -
The immigration policy of the lib dems... amnesty for immigrants has now become a "immigration" cap.
David Cameron's idea of a political joke "Nick Clegg" now becoming his bosom buddy
Lib Dems Proportional representation becoming a referendum on A.V. which will be blocked before it even becomes policy...
So, when the compromise is a complete step down - No
So one has to ask, What was the alternative? What do you believe should have been done?
The tories should have been made to go it alone, then nobody would have made any concessions or drop any key policies. What better way to ensure conservative (pardon the pun) policies. What better way to ensure they do whats best for the country. No extreme policies could be made without having at least some of all the parties onside.
It may not have been ideal but hey, who cares nobody sells ut the people who voted for them. In this lifetime no-one will be able to trust clegg again... Vote clegg - Get cameron!
Cameron has done the best out of the deal as any policy the lib dems want in his party can agree to "put it through" but then note vote for it.
They would have had to drop most of their policys if they had tried that, as they do not have enough a majority and can not vote any policy's through dunno

Yup it would have seriously restricted what they could do and thats how we voted. If we as a country had wanted them to have full control we would have given it to them. they had the small majority, it was up to them to work it the best they could. Which is what they did... worked it enough that they got a lib dem sell out to help them take control.
If they can't get any policy's through then the government collapses and we are back to another election, no good at all in the current climate
By the time the election comes round if this were to happen, a new labour leader would be in place, people who voted liberal tactically to keep out the tories may well re-think their vote. those who were fooled/convinced by the clegg charm in the tv debates may well re-think. Those people who voted tory or liberal to get brown out may also re-think their vote. those who thought camerons contract of promises that he signed in front of people on tv would be kept and have seen them watered down by coalition may re-think. those who dont like whoever the new labour leader (whoever it may be) may well re-think. i reckon that we would end up with one party in sole charge...
i'm sure the economy will be ok for a month or so while its all sorted... if not then they should just carry on with labours budget just to be on the safe side ;)

15 May 2010

*Snip*
By the time the election comes round if this were to happen, a new labour leader would be in place, people who voted liberal tactically to keep out the tories may well re-think their vote. those who were fooled/convinced by the clegg charm in the tv debates may well re-think. Those people who voted tory or liberal to get brown out may also re-think their vote. those who thought camerons contract of promises that he signed in front of people on tv would be kept and have seen them watered down by coalition may re-think. those who dont like whoever the new labour leader (whoever it may be) may well re-think. i reckon that we would end up with one party in sole charge...
i'm sure the economy will be ok for a month or so while its all sorted... if not then they should just carry on with labours budget just to be on the safe side ;)
The markets require a strong government in place or they would stop leanding to the government.
At this stage I feel what was done was the correct thing to do, and as stated before, firmly belive will strenthen the Tory's

15 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

Are we getting the the crux again, class problems. I think you may have expressed a similar view when we discussed fox hunting. Forgive me if I have missread you
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/305150.html
Can't deny there is a class problem mainly because neither Cameron or Clegg have ever had to live in the real world..and consequently I believe have no idea of how people lead their lives or struggle to make ends meet,we are I suspect like an alien species to them and the rest of their public school cronies

16 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

Are we getting the the crux again, class problems. I think you may have expressed a similar view when we discussed fox hunting. Forgive me if I have missread you
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/305150.html
Can't deny there is a class problem mainly because neither Cameron or Clegg have ever had to live in the real world..and consequently I believe have no idea of how people lead their lives or struggle to make ends meet,we are I suspect like an alien species to them and the rest of their public school cronies
Well, I for one will not be pre-gudging them for the way they have been brought up, educated or for the family/class they my have been born into. I felt very alienated by Labour and both its recent leaders, so there is nothing new in that.

16 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

Are we getting the the crux again, class problems. I think you may have expressed a similar view when we discussed fox hunting. Forgive me if I have missread you
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/305150.html
Can't deny there is a class problem mainly because neither Cameron or Clegg have ever had to live in the real world..and consequently I believe have no idea of how people lead their lives or struggle to make ends meet,we are I suspect like an alien species to them and the rest of their public school cronies
Well, I for one will not be pre-gudging them for the way they have been brought up, educated or for the family/class they my have been born into. I felt very alienated by Labour and both its recent leaders, so there is nothing new in that.
I don't begrude them their education or upbringing - a mere accident of birth after all -I do question their allegiances, and their ability to understand the problems faced by ordinary people in this country...public schools have a tendency to instill a sense of entitlement into their pupils,which in turn tends to leave those pupils unable to understand quite how lucky they are and how grateful they should be for what they have been given.

16 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.

Are we getting the the crux again, class problems. I think you may have expressed a similar view when we discussed fox hunting. Forgive me if I have missread you
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/305150.html
Can't deny there is a class problem mainly because neither Cameron or Clegg have ever had to live in the real world..and consequently I believe have no idea of how people lead their lives or struggle to make ends meet,we are I suspect like an alien species to them and the rest of their public school cronies
Well, I for one will not be pre-gudging them for the way they have been brought up, educated or for the family/class they my have been born into. I felt very alienated by Labour and both its recent leaders, so there is nothing new in that.
I don't begrude them their education or upbringing - a mere accident of birth after all -I do question their allegiances, and their ability to understand the problems faced by ordinary people in this country...public schools have a tendency to instill a sense of entitlement into their pupils,which in turn tends to leave those pupils unable to understand quite how lucky they are and how grateful they should be for what they have been given.
Looked more like a prejudice to me, I apologise for my misconception

16 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
There are many people who do not understand our electoral system this does not make what they believe to be the case true...no-one voted for the labour,tory or liberal parties..very few voted for Brown,Clegg,or Cameron...your vote is cast to elect a local representative to parliament

Bluefish2009 wrote:
awayman wrote:
Bluefish2009 wrote:
Staggerlee_BB wrote:
Thing is you wanted a government ....you got Bertie fucking Wooster and his faithful manservant Jeeves....problem is I doubt Clegg has any of Jeeves' innate working class intelligence.
The people got the government they voted for, you may argue that is due to the way we vote, and how the votes are counted, but that has been in place some time now.
At this early stage, I like it. I hope to see Cameron use this to get rid of some of his right wing baggage and policy's and take on the good ones fro the liberals. If he plays this right, he can move to the centre ground and keep Labour out for a very long time indeed! In my humble view that is. icon_
I didn't get the government I voted for. Who are these 'people' of whom you speak?
We did not vote for a government, we voted for candidates/seats. The way people voted across the country left us in the situation we are in now.
Like I said, that's my humble view
You are quite correct Blue.

Just depends who says it then I suppose....blue can I pm you all my future posts for you to copypasta ??
And if anyone can tell me how to do the multiple quote thing properly I'd be v. grateful

16 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Just depends who says it then I suppose....blue can I pm you all my future posts for you to copypasta ??And if anyone can tell me how to do the multiple quote thing properly I'd be v. grateful

Not quite sure what you mean by this, If you mean I have replied/quoted lots of what you have posted then you are quite correct, this is as I have had some thing to say about what you have written dunno

I can assure you that my intention is not to be rude, antaganistic or agresive and hope I have not given that inpression. I would ask you to understand I am not a politically intellectual and often what is written here goes a little over my head and I may misunderstand at times.
On an ass licking subject, I would like to put on record that I have learn much from your self, and the likes of Ben, Kaz and Kenty in the time I have been here.

16 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

Just depends who says it then I suppose....blue can I pm you all my future posts for you to copypasta ??And if anyone can tell me how to do the multiple quote thing properly I'd be v. grateful

Not quite sure what you mean by this, If you mean I have replied/quoted lots of what you have posted then you are quite correct, this is as I have had some thing to say about what you have written dunno

I can assure you that my intention is not to be rude, antaganistic or agresive and hope I have not given that inpression. I would ask you to understand I am not a politically intellectual and often what is written here goes a little over my head and I may misunderstand at times.
On an ass licking subject, I would like to put on record that I have learn much from your self, and the likes of Ben, Kaz and Kenty in the time I have been here.
A joke ......I just wondered what response my opinion would get if people thought it was coming from you

16 May 2010

"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is."
Sir Francis Bacon...
Jeeze I love this Google thingy.

16 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Just depends who says it then I suppose....blue can I pm you all my future posts for you to copypasta ??And if anyone can tell me how to do the multiple quote thing properly I'd be v. grateful

Not quite sure what you mean by this, If you mean I have replied/quoted lots of what you have posted then you are quite correct, this is as I have had some thing to say about what you have written dunno

I can assure you that my intention is not to be rude, antaganistic or agresive and hope I have not given that inpression. I would ask you to understand I am not a politically intellectual and often what is written here goes a little over my head and I may misunderstand at times.
On an ass licking subject, I would like to put on record that I have learn much from your self, and the likes of Ben, Kaz and Kenty in the time I have been here.
A joke ......I just wondered what response my opinion would get if people thought it was coming from you
Ah, I see, forgive me for my stupidity.
However I think I can answer your question, with a little tongue in cheekof coarse.
If you sent me your opinion and I posted it, some would agree with what I had posted but Staggs would find fault in it.....
Joke.....

16 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

Just depends who says it then I suppose....blue can I pm you all my future posts for you to copypasta ??And if anyone can tell me how to do the multiple quote thing properly I'd be v. grateful

Not quite sure what you mean by this, If you mean I have replied/quoted lots of what you have posted then you are quite correct, this is as I have had some thing to say about what you have written dunno

I can assure you that my intention is not to be rude, antaganistic or agresive and hope I have not given that inpression. I would ask you to understand I am not a politically intellectual and often what is written here goes a little over my head and I may misunderstand at times.
On an ass licking subject, I would like to put on record that I have learn much from your self, and the likes of Ben, Kaz and Kenty in the time I have been here.
A joke ......I just wondered what response my opinion would get if people thought it was coming from you
Ah, I see, forgive me for my stupidity.
However I think I can answer your question, with a little tongue in cheekof coarse.
If you sent me your opinion and I posted it, some would agree with what I had posted but Staggs would find fault in it.....
Joke.....
Probably he's an argumentative old bugger that staggerlee

18 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
I voted Tory and to be honest I am not happy as I never voted for a coalition but....Camerons majority was not enough for him to last on his own for too long.
The country cannot afford to wait a further six months with uncertainty, that is not good for a economic recovery that we desperately need. So I am at least prepared to go along with the coalition and see where it leads.
Yes the Libs have had to give up on some of their manifesto promises. Trident for one and immigration being the other.
Both have been discussed on here and I am glad that Trident will be updated, and am also glad that illegal immigrants and a dependent, will NOT be given the right to stay here.
So with those two issues out of the way I can see the coalition working, and it is much better than a lib/Lab pact with Brown at the helm.
I will see where this leads us but a coalition can hopefully bring about some stability, and Cameron and Clegg can get together to sort out the mess this past Government have created.
Only time will tell if it can be successful.
How great though was Heseltine? A real Tory and a great Statesman.
Plus who was that total pratt from the New Statesman? Talked a load of rubbish most of the time.

:thumbup::thumbup:
there`s an old saying that two heads are better than one
i think each will keep the other in check a bit like a business partnership
so i`m inclined to agree
and it certainly can`t be any worse than the of the country`s finances by gordon(spendaholic)brown and his new labour
theres also an old saying that" a camel is a horse designed by a committee"

18 May 2010

Welcome to the forms Hollie.
As you can see already a hot bed of opinions but....if you follow what I write it is never that far away from right. wink

18 May 2010

Welcome Hollie, to the forums lol

25 May 2010

Some interesting points raised. For my sins I voted for one of Lord Sutch's men, a hopeless task I know but maybe one day.......... Anyhow, the debate about the 55% No Confidence Vote intrigued me. I think people should know that it would still only require 50% plus 1 to bring down the Government but only 55% to force an election (Cameron could soldier on and try to run a minority administration with a defeat of 51%). There is a crucial distinction between bringing down a Government and forcing an Election, which is not often understood. Here are some other countries percentages on forcing an election:
1. Scotland: 66%. Brought about by the Labour - Liberal Coalition and carried on by the SNP. I dont remember any Labour MP's complaining of 66% (11% more) here!!
2. Wales: 66%. The Welsh Assembly use the same rule as the Scotish Parliment, again Labour are happy with this here.
3. Switzerland: The Government cannot be brought down mid term by any amount!! The same applies to the US Congress.
4. Germany: An early election is only permitted if the Bundestag fails to support the Chancellor on a motion of no confidence in the Chancellor and fails to elect a successor within 21 days. So virtually immpossible, this was done to stop the chaos caused in the 1980's of opportunistic elections being called (2 in fact).
The moral here is no matter who says what in the world of Politics........take it all with a very large pinch of salt!!
Echoes

25 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
long before i was born and probably long after i`m gone
history has proved that anyone party elected was not up to the job
so why not give a union of two parties a chance i`m sure most marriages are successful based on one keeping the other in check on certain issues one being better with money than another so only time will tell

I think the existence of the national health service stands as testament to how wrong you are......no coalition would/could have pushed through the legislation needed
Well, but if I remember my GCSE History right, weren't some of the first significant moves towards establishing the welfare state made by Lloyd George (of the Liberals) in 1913 or something? People of different parties can have similar ideas and beliefs, and a bit of moderation is often a good thing. One of the biggest problems with G. Brown, and indeed T. Blair, and indeed M. Thatcher, was their inclination and ability to railroad through whatever they wanted without reference even to their own ministers, let alone their party let alone the more than half of the population who didn't vote for them. Do you think we would have gone to war in Iraq or created the poll tax (or closed the pits or sold off the railways and utilities, etc.) if it had to be agreed to by MPs of several parties?
I think the achievements of the post-war Labour government are some of the most spectacular and beautiful things any government has ever done. They put it all up 50-odd years ago and every government since has chipped a bit off, but it's all still standing. In fact during the time of Blair I frequently wanted to grab ahold of him and go "Look! Look at that stuff! They had one term and they did all that! You don't need to sell all your beliefs to KEEP power, you just need to USE the power you've got. Grow a pair and do what you know is right! Gutless twat." Which I guess is an argument against coalitions. But, a series of coalitions would create more stability and coherence to government; so that each successive government wouldn't spend half its time trying to undo what the previous one had done, and wouldn't be able to so radically hack up their predecessors' achievements. If you believe in the principle of democracy, by extension you trust the whole of the electorate to collectively choose governments that will represent and realise their beliefs, which means coalitions, since they bring to the table a fair wider base of beliefs than one party can.
I'm not sure if I trust the British public. A much more appealing prospect is me as benevolent dictator.
T

25 May 2010

Quote by tomu
long before i was born and probably long after i`m gone
history has proved that anyone party elected was not up to the job
so why not give a union of two parties a chance i`m sure most marriages are successful based on one keeping the other in check on certain issues one being better with money than another so only time will tell

I think the existence of the national health service stands as testament to how wrong you are......no coalition would/could have pushed through the legislation needed
Well, but if I remember my GCSE History right, weren't some of the first significant moves towards establishing the welfare state made by Lloyd George (of the Liberals) in 1913 or something? People of different parties can have similar ideas and beliefs, and a bit of moderation is often a good thing. One of the biggest problems with G. Brown, and indeed T. Blair, and indeed M. Thatcher, was their inclination and ability to railroad through whatever they wanted without reference even to their own ministers, let alone their party let alone the more than half of the population who didn't vote for them. Do you think we would have gone to war in Iraq or created the poll tax (or closed the pits or sold off the railways and utilities, etc.) if it had to be agreed to by MPs of several parties?
I think the achievements of the post-war Labour government are some of the most spectacular and beautiful things any government has ever done. They put it all up 50-odd years ago and every government since has chipped a bit off, but it's all still standing. In fact during the time of Blair I frequently wanted to grab ahold of him and go "Look! Look at that stuff! They had one term and they did all that! You don't need to sell all your beliefs to KEEP power, you just need to USE the power you've got. Grow a pair and do what you know is right! Gutless twat." Which I guess is an argument against coalitions. But, a series of coalitions would create more stability and coherence to government; so that each successive government wouldn't spend half its time trying to undo what the previous one had done, and wouldn't be able to so radically hack up their predecessors' achievements. If you believe in the principle of democracy, by extension you trust the whole of the electorate to collectively choose governments that will represent and realise their beliefs, which means coalitions, since they bring to the table a fair wider base of beliefs than one party can.
I'm not sure if I trust the British public. A much more appealing prospect is me as benevolent dictator.
T
No argument from me....apart from coalition government...they're there to prove me wrong, but we have such an adversarial political system in this country that I doubt that the honeymoon will last

25 May 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Welcome to the forms Hollie.
As you can see already a hot bed of opinions but....if you follow what I write it is never that far away from right wing.

:wink:

Quote by Echoes7
Anyhow, the debate about the 55% No Confidence Vote intrigued me. I think people should know that it would still only require 50% plus 1 to bring down the Government but only 55% to force an election

Thanks for that Echoes I thought I had heard that the 51% still applied but wasn't sure.

26 May 2010

There would be nothing to prevent a minority government staying in power even if they could get nothing done.....the trick would be first arranging things so that the opposition had fewer mps (change boundaries) and bankrupting the opposition (make donations from unions illegal)
You then have an election that you know you've won before its done.
Thatcher tried the unions money thing....but the members voted to continue the donations.
This time they are going to have to obtain written confirmation from each union member about how they want the donation made, and to who, or if at all.
The last boundary changes took place just before the last election, and benefited the conservative party with 12 seats, and labour with -7.
If, however, you reduce the amount of mps, you then have to decide which boundaries need rearranging....shame if it was all in the north....
And guess what.....reducing mps number is on the hasten agenda...