The Debate

A uniform 20% (1 in 5) swing from LD to Lab gives Labour the most seats (298 vs Con 297; LD down to 27 seats).

A uniform 40% (2 in 5) swing from LD to Lab gives Labour a majority (328 vs Cont 290; LD down to 5 seats)

Pointless stat. no use to anyone.

Swings between Ld and labour are far from uniform across the country

The difficulty the libs will have in some southern constituencies is that their vote is effectively an anti tory one. But at same time, the labour vote is so squeezed that that few would consider switching next time around, simply because the tories would obviously benefit
 
Like to explain why EC1?



What absolute drivel. Are they really going to stand aside and not support either party? Leaving the goverment in limbo?



Have you had difficulty following events? Brown walked because they didnt really want a coalition anyway? Really makes sense that...


Labour is under threat now from the left within the party. the seamus milne tendency will see this as an opportunity to "reclaim their party" and i suspect the new leader may well be facing internal battles with the dim nutters on the far left that ruined their prospects throughout the eighties. This could especially come to light when the welcome and much needed cuts in the public sector non-jobs comes to pass

Clive

I thought a lot of what Martin posted was - superior - arrogant and rude tbh.

Dismissing people's views in the derogatory way he has in that post isn't going to encourage a "good post" from me obviously?

The truth is that Clegg has showed himself to to be a self server - i'll point out again..when the first set of discussions ended with the tories..at which point the announcement mentioned everything they had discussed..missing out electoral reform though..but a day later when tories called them back..it was just one carrot used - a promise of a referendum on electoral reform..demonstrating clearly the only thing Clegg was bothered about.

Why shouldn't Labour have had talks with them?..it was the right thing to do to show people that all avenues had been explored..it would be fair to imagine that when Clegg went into that meeting he didn't give a jot about anything bar electoral reform..and got short shrift.

The right thing to do as far as Clegg was concerned was to join neither party..his voters and grass roots don't support an alliance..and neither do the grass roots of tory party. They should have let the tories have a minority government..because teh one they have now will be a very short lived affair anyway.

These great statesmen have let their foot soldiers do all the legwork then sell them down the river..very statesmanlike.

A guy on our street has a lib dem board outside his house..he has put a line through and written ..I didn't vote Tory..that feeling will be reflected the next time we have an election. Clegg has looked after himself..but condemned his party to a bleak future.

Brown walked because he knows his party needs to elect a new leader quickly..he did the right thing..unlike the other two graspers for power. I would imagine there was great relief all round in the Labour party.

At the end of the day..lets see how good the Statesman twosome are..and how long it lasts.

by the way..i voted lib dem...even though our man was one of the higher expenses fiddlers ..so am no lover of labour..don't really feel strongly about any party..just giving my view as an independent observer over the last week
 
Last edited:
I'll ask a question..its probably naive

why were those negotiations in private?..shouldn't we as the voters see how these people operate..why the secrecy?
 
i'm not a political animal Clive I must admit - I used to be but I have took quite an interest in all this and have watched a lot of it..got quite interested must admit.

A while back I was totally convinced the Tories would win easily..I just couldn't see how they could fail..it was like an open goal..but its gone really wrong for them..imo

I just go on what I feel..maybe naive sometimes obviously.

I don't think any combination of what was on offer is what we need at this time..we really needed a strong government..and we haven't got that even though lib/tories have a majority

I would imagine there is quite a lot of turbulence in both of the parties beneath the top echelons.

none of what is happening is any good for us is it?

Treat me as an independent - man in street view if you like
 
Last edited:
After being called a tree-hugging nancyboy poof by SL, and presumably thought braindead by Martin, I'd just like to say that my thinking (such as a THNBPB might be capable of) is along EC1's lines. I've missed the news, sounds just as well!

I've no idea whether the govt. will explode, implode, or just gently fizzle into infinity - I'm beyond caring now, only grateful that the ghastly Labourites didn't get in directly for another term. They'll still have to fight it out for the next one, and the outcome will depend very much on who they put up in lieu of Gordon Brown. If it's Harman, I'll be right behind Clivex at Terminal 4, I reckon!
 
Like to explain why EC1?



What absolute drivel. Are they really going to stand aside and not support either party? Leaving the goverment in limbo?



Have you had difficulty following events? Brown walked because they didnt really want a coalition anyway? Really makes sense that...


Labour is under threat now from the left within the party. the seamus milne tendency will see this as an opportunity to "reclaim their party" and i suspect the new leader may well be facing internal battles with the dim nutters on the far left that ruined their prospects throughout the eighties. This could especially come to light when the welcome and much needed cuts in the public sector non-jobs comes to pass

In your dreams - this won't be 1979 - the fact is if you do not like the Tories and want them out you now have to vote Labour - it is a return to two party politics
 
Last edited:
One shocking thing about this new alliance is their attempt to rig Parliament - apparently they propose that fixed term parliaments will only be dissolved by a 55% majority rather than 50% plus 1.

Jesus, they didnt take long. Why 55%? Why not a US Senate-esque 60% supermajority? Reform :lol:
 
After being called a tree-hugging nancyboy poof by SL, and presumably thought braindead by Martin

No no, my arrogant and rude post was just trying to summarise what I was reading on the thread.

I am just a sad loner I wouldn't expect anyone to listen to me or take me seriously.

The last few posts including from Adross and ECI have made a bit more sense.
 
Last edited:
One shocking thing about this new alliance is their attempt to rig Parliament - apparently they propose that fixed term parliaments will only be dissolved by a 55% majority rather than 50% plus 1 . This is simply Stalinist

Wrong again. A no confidence vote would still only require 51%. Also in the scoittish and welsh parliaments the % is 66. If 55 is "stalinist" what is 66?

But compared with a scottish pm whipping through legistaltion that doesnt affect his constituents

and compared with a leader, with his own prejudices and and agendas, taking control without any electoral mandate

and compared with a party getting a quarter of the votes but 10% of the representation

This is absolutely a non issue

The fix term of 5 years is wrong IMO. Agree with fixed term but should be 4
 
Wrong again. A no confidence vote would still only require 51%. Also in the scoittish and welsh parliaments the % is 66. If 55 is "stalinist" what is 66?

But compared with a scottish pm whipping through legistaltion that doesnt affect his constituents

and compared with a leader, with his own prejudices and and agendas, taking control without any electoral mandate

and compared with a party getting a quarter of the votes but 10% of the representation

This is absolutely a non issue

The fix term of 5 years is wrong IMO. Agree with fixed term but should be 4

You seem to fail to understand the constitution - and this has blown up big style in the face of the coalition already .

It is disingenuous to say a vote of no confidence would still require only a majority of 1 as it would not lead to the dissolution of Parliament thus allowing a minority Tory government to block dissolution in the face of the will of Parliament - strangely enough Hitler passed a similar law in 1934 !
 
Well, I think they would be obliged to go to the polls after a vote of no confidence, but I dont agree with this change to 55% anyway. Seems a bit opportunist to some eyes and comes across as cynical to others. 50% makes sense and should stay taht way
 
That's just classy - already, within days of a Tory being pronounced as PM, Ardross is making comparisons with Hitler :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top