[Closed] Coalition - the first hundred days - falling out or loving in?

We're all doomed. Doomed I tell you

I think we will need more than 100 days to completely develop the irrational hatred we have of all people in a position of power.

One idea they should look at is having an open day where you can turn up and pay £5 to slap Callmedave around his chubby little face with a nice wet fish. Should make a good few 100 million for the economy.

They still look happy together

[img] [/img]

LHS - Member

One idea they should look at is having an open day where you can turn up and pay £5 to slap Callmedave around his chubby little face with a nice wet fish. Should make a good few 100 million for the economy.

I'll pay a fiver for that.

My guess is that they will be hard pushed to last a year and have no chance of lasting 5. I think this years lib dem conference will be crucial as will the referendum on changing the voting.

Its a victory of individual power seeking, at any cost over principles.

The fact that neither part has rebelled indicates that the self serving practice runs deep!

They had 1 week of sensible stuff and there I was thinking "That's a good idea. But when will the shit hit the fan?". Sure enough, as soon as they started pulling funding to help kickstart Sheffield industry and fiddling with the NHS it all went to pot. The liberals will hopefully see sense soon.

Forgemasters? Governments lending cash to businesses has a history of ending badly.

Forgemasters? Governments lending cash to businesses rarely ends well.

The banks?

Lib Dems are finished as a political party for the foreseeable future.

As said, there was some sensible noises coming out in the first week or so - that has all been abandoned for typical Tory privatisation/cutting dogma - regressive tax policies, 'an end to the war on motorists' bullshit etc etc

Nick Clegg looks increasingly marginalised and pathetic.

The banks?

Not just simple lending. The government has shares in the banks, which creates a very different situation. And there are clauses in the recapitalisation scheme that make taking the money very painful.

It's a triumph of disappointment over anticipation.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.....which is going some to be fair, as I anticipated a complete cluster **** and expected an assault on the lower middle, working and underclasses, yet I'm still disappointed by what a bunch of self serving and evil bastards they've all turned out to be

Anti Social Behaviour has risen dramatically in my area since the ConDems came in. 'Big Society' my arse.

It's a triumph of disappointment over anticipation

Bit like NuLabour then

see very little of the lib dems in this coalition seem so keen on showing that a coalition will work they have forgoten they had policies and principles other than PR. If the Tories alone was 10 then this coalition is about 9 on this scale as they have barely watered them down and capitualted completely on the economy. I cannot believe that Lib dem voters are happy with them and I dont see them as credible now or in the near future. Next election they MUST say who they will form a government with and how can they say Labour and then defend what they have just done for the last period with the Tories. Suspect the bon homie between the privately educated very rich leaders was/is more important than policies as they are natural mates due to upbringing etc.
Dave [when did the war start Mr President sir] seems to have some credibility eg Blody Sunday and Israel [clearly I despise the smug sod] and is doing OK.
I would not let Gideon run the taps usupervised let alone the economy.

Bit like NuLabour then

good point deadlydreary NuLabour really invigourated us didn't they after waiting all that time

🙄

We could try and stick to the point I suppose.

HTH.

The point being that a new govt comes in and does sfa, as we've seen before.

HTH

I was listening to the radio today as Dave's bitch talk about how poor social mobility was and how the last government had done nothing about it. Then an academic came on and totally slated his use of the research findings. His presumptions were based on a data set that compared people born in the 50's with those in the 70's and the current data sets available looking at current kids showed that educational underperformance by lower social classes had been reducing in the last 5 years.

Dave's bitch then said nothing about what they would do to help things anyway.

@ trailmonkey

Shall we (meaning you) leave the name calling for today? So, you've no comment on the first 100 days of the coalition? That was the point of the thread...

So, you've no comment on the first 100 days of the coalition?

yeah:

It's a triumph of disappointment over anticipation

Which is a

Bit like NuLabour then

The point being that a new govt comes in and does sfa, as we've seen before

I could always go through it a 3rd time for you if you're struggling

edit, no forget it, i've got work to do

If the Tories alone was 10 then this coalition is about 9 on this scale as they have barely watered them down and capitualted completely on the economy.

What percentage of seats do the lib dems contribute to this alliance?

Junkyard

I cannot believe that Lib dem voters are happy with them and I dont see them as credible now or in the near future.

I agree. My original point being that the evident discomfort amongst the LD grassroots was bound to percolate up through to the PP eventually, given that the route from grassroots to PP is probably shorter than in the other two parties. Some senior (by senior, I mean older) LDs must be shuddering at the prospect of seeing their party support the slashing of public services...all for the seeming carrot of an offer of a referendum on voting reform (which goes nowhere near what the LDs want anyway).

i've got work to do

Phew.

Still technically a honeymoon period. The trouble really starts when the spending cut reviews are concluded later in the year and will more than likely conclude with the voting reform bill either being sidelined before it gets to Parliament, or when it falls at the first hurdle in parliament.

That's when the split starts. This Government is going to last a lot less than five years.

Bit like NuLabour then

What percentage of seats do the lib dems contribute to this alliance?

But more importantly (or should be) what percentage of [i]votes[/i] do they contribute?

Dave's bitch talk about how poor social mobility was and how the last government had done nothing about it.

Hmm and they seem to be doing everything they can to make it worse...

Labour at least slowed the rate at which the gap between rich and poor is increasing (which was racing away under the last Tory government)

Lib Dems hate this coalition as they have to face up to the real job of running the country rather than perpetually standing on the sidelines pontificating about what they would do in their ideal make-believe world!!

tree-magnet

What percentage of seats do the lib dems contribute to this alliance?

I would normally say here that I cannot wait for the day that the Tories are removed from being anywhere near the levers of power. But that almost certainly means that Labour will be back in, and I am mightily disillusioned with them. Does this make me an anarchist, a realist or merely old enough to be cynical? I have rather lost my idealist faith in politics over the last few years. Bah humbug.

I would normally say here that I cannot wait for the day that the Tories are removed from being anywhere near the levers of power. But that almost certainly means that Labour will be back in, and I am mightily disillusioned with them.

Depressing isn't it. 🙁

Indeed.

ononeorange. Me too. For the first time in my life I had no enthusiasm for the election of a Labour Government. Mind you seeing as the Condems are far worse than I thought they would be its just dispiriting. Thank goodness I live in Scotland. At least we have a smug toad in with muppet sidekick in charge ( sort of) here.

Depressing isn't it.

You said it 🙁

Shall we form our own party? I'm sure we can dream up a manifesto that we will have no intention of following once in power, and think of the perks...?!!

We just need to find some rich creeps to fund us, who we are then in thrall to for ever.

Cptflasheart to the forum please 😆
Joking aside what is you view?

I would normally say here that I cannot wait for the day that the Tories are removed from being anywhere near the levers of power. But that almost certainly means that Labour will be back in, and I am mightily disillusioned with them.

This is what happens when a particular class of people, the middle class become the dominant voter. You won't get a more socialist party gaining power unless something dramatic happens...which almost did with the economic crash. The then Government negated this by bailing the current form of capitalism out using public money, if the real conservatives had been in power and had let the principles of the free market take its course, who knows what flavour of Government could have now been in power.

But now we do have a particularly right wing minded Government in, you get an attack on the state. In this case and Labour as well, is there are sub-sets within the class system and if both Cons and Lab looked after the "lower middle class", election victories would be easier. The conservatives by targeting benefits for middle classes are essentially cutting their own throats, politically speaking.

Of course Clegg banging on about social mobility...simple, devalue the housing stock, build more affordable housing and create jobs in unemployment blackspots...which is pretty much where industries were closed down during the 80's.

Junkyard - Member
tree-magnet

What percentage of seats do the lib dems contribute to this alliance?

Is it the winning percentage ? The bit that gets the Tories over the majority line o form a stable goverenment? If you think they have negotiated well, adhered to their policies or changed the Tory policies [who really would have needed to alter their policies/water them down if they were a minority government] then please indicate how by reference to policies especially the economy, social justice, redistributive taxes etc.es the toroes got the most votes but mor epeole votd against them and more MPs were not Tories than were. If you think this is a mandate for ory change then you have the sword of justice and the Birtish sense of fair play that the Tories are renound for.
ib dems sold out for power when they really did hold some serious bargaining chips and uld have me difference rather than support/prop up a Tory government.

lol, I never said a word about whether I thought the conservatives were doing a good job. As it happens I'm out of the country for 9 months of the year and couldn't tell you one way or the other.

My point is that arguing that the conservatives are making 90% of the decisions is a bad thing is kind of a crock. The lib dems were the third party in the race, not even second. Yet their policies matter more? This is why I hate party politics. In reality terms hardly anyone voted Lib Dem yet they have more of a say in how this country is run than Lab, and people are complaining they don't have enough say...

They came third. Whatever negotiations took place leading up to the alliance doesn't change the fact. Whatever YOU or even me think, the conservative party got the most votes, and therefore imo have the right to lead this country. Don't agree with it? Tough titties.

In reality terms hardly anyone voted Lib Dem

I wouldn't call more than one in five "hardly anyone".

Although it has to be said, most people who voted Lib Dem had no idea that they were voting for a Conservative government ........or that the Lib Dems would ditch key policies within a few days of the election.

mrmagnet you ignore the fact that most people did not vote for them or their policies- I gave specfic examples especially the economy where only they argued for such sweeping budget cuts as we are seeing now. Given their vote share the tories have no legitimacy to form a majority govt nor a mandate for their policies most people voted for parties who were not goin ot cut the budget this year. Given the lib dems have caved into them and inded it is tough titties for everyone due diectly to their decisions and woeful negotiation skills.
EDIT: Lb dem vote share was 23% 1.8 million less than lab and 4 m less than Tory reasonable in a three party system IMHO and mor ethan hardly anyone.BNP got over 500,000 is that hardly anyone as well?

Even the tories did not propose such sweeping cuts in their manifesto

I'm bitterly disappointed.
I really hoped that the Libdems would moderate the Cons and maybe we could get some sense out of the government.
I feared that the tories would do their usual thing and make sure the Liberals got the blame.

mrmagnet you ignore the fact that most people did not vote for them or their policies-

No, but they gained more of the vote than any other single party

I gave specfic examples especially the economy where only they argued for such sweeping budget cuts as we are seeing now.

I didn't say anything about this. I didn't argue that I thought the alliance was going well or badly. Perhaps you're talking to someone else?

Given their vote share the tories have no legitimacy to form a majority govt nor a mandate for their policies most people voted for parties who were not goin ot cut the budget this year.

Yes they do, they got the most seats [i]and[/i] votes. More people agree with their policies than any other party. To your second point, unfortunatley we don't get to pick and choose different parts of different parties manifestos. So it's kind of irrelevant.

Given the lib dems have caved into them and inded it is tough titties for everyone due diectly to their decisions and woeful negotiation skills.

Oh well.

EDIT: Lb dem vote share was 23% 1.8 million less than lab and 4 m less than Tory reasonable in a three party system IMHO and mor ethan hardly anyone.BNP got over 500,000 is that hardly anyone as well?

Not sure of what your point is here, what have the BNP got to do with this? Your statement of the amount of votes illustrates my point, 4 million more people voted for the Conservatives than the Lib Dem, so, as you still didn't really get to the crux of it, why should the Lib Dems have more of a say in the current alliance? It's only because of the way our political system is structured that they have any say at all.

I can't think of any other system where the person or team that come third have more of a say than those in second. As I said, I'm not arguing what is right and wrong in this alliance, just that it's an illustration (imo) of what is wrong with party politics.

Yes they got the most votes but it was neither a majority of the electorate nor a majority of the seats in the house of parliament so more people did not want these policies than did.most votes but not amajority is just a statement of fact. You see this is as a mandate for them [I bet you deny this now] I disagree that they have a mandate for their policies I doubt we will form a coalition/consensus on this issue.

we don't get to pick and choose different parts of different parties manifestos. So it's kind of irrelevant.

Not sure of what your point is here

why should the Lib Dems have more of a say in the current alliance?

It's only because of the way our political system is structured that they have any say at all.

I can't think of any other system where the person or team that come third have more of a say than those in second

Yes they got the most votes but it was neither a majority of the electorate nor a majority of the seats in the house of parliament so more people did not want these policies than did.most votes but not amajority is just a statement of fact. You see this is as a mandate for them [I bet you deny this now] I disagree that they have a mandate for their policies I doubt we will form a coalition/consensus on this issue.

I think you miss my point. I'm not arguing that the tories should have been allowed to lead with no coalition, I'm bemoaning the fact that due to the way our political system is structured a party that came third has more say than the party that came second. I do see the amount of votes the tories had as a mandate for them, at the end of the day they had the largest vote share of any other single party. More people agreed with them than with any other single party.

I would assume this could happen under a coalition. If the parties dont pick and choose from their policies what would be the point of a coalition ? Just for the third party to prop up the Tories?

You know what they say about assumption. And I didn't say the parties can't pick and chose from their policies in a coalition, I said we can't pick. You said that most people voted for parties that didn't want to cut. I said that that's irelevant, you don't vote for individual policies, you vote for parties and candidates.

How many votes and what percentage of the electorate do you require for you to not dismiss their votes as hardly anyone?

I still don't see you point. If you're arguing for PR then I'd agree with you. Unfortunatly there has been no electoral reform yet, so it makes no difference.

Where did I say they should have more of a say than the Tories? I think they should dilute Tory policies more. I gave them 10% of the coalition yet they bring roughly 40% of the votes of the Tories. Clearly the coalition will be more Tory than Lib Dem but not by much if we look at votes. If their was no coalition and the libdems stuck to the manifesto it is diffciult to see how a minority govt would have got this budget through.

No, you miss-read. I said why should they have more of a say, not that they should have more say than the cons. As for the figures, I think I must read it wrong, I see it as 307 seats to the tories and 57 seats to the lib dems. That's not 40% is it? I asume I'm missing something here...

You may wat to look at other coalition governments to see where this happens.

So, that'll be the same systems then... I was looking for something else. I suppose politics has it's own way of doing things.

[quoteI do see the amount of votes the tories had as a mandate for them, at the end of the day they had the largest vote share of any other single party. More people agreed with them than with any other single party.
But not enough to fom a government so I dont eally see this is a mandate for them. Certainly they should be in govt[minority] but not sure how not winning enough votes is a mandate they all have that mandate as none of them got a majority. In factso do we as we did noget enough setas/vtes either.

you vote for parties and candidates

I asume I'm missing something here

Yes cant think of anything else either[where 3rd takes power] but unless we change to some sort of AV or two party system not sure how we can get to 50% votes for one party. I am not in favour of overly rewrding wnners with only 36% of the vote

Ok, we're going round in circles now, I've got nothing new to add. If you're looking for responses to what you've just posted, you can re-read what I've already said. 🙂

trailmonkey - Member

It's a triumph of disappointment over anticipation

Bit like NuLabour then

Didn't spot the bit where NuLabour were deliberately pursuing policies that attacked those least able to cope to fund a crisis created by those most able to pay for their misdemeanours. Did I miss that bit?

No you didn't miss it. That would be because I never claimed it.

NuLab did however gain power in 97 and we anticipated that things could only get better. We were dissapointed.

Hence, what I said ........

It's a triumph of disappointment over anticipation

Bit like NuLabour then

............made perfect sense.

Ah I see.

OK well there you are, the whole problem with democracy is that you have to get elected. A large proportion of the electorate are shall we say, of the challenged of the attention span type and thus politicions of all hues have to get these to both like them and vote for them. Thus you end up with some very strange things going on pre election, such as NuLabour and the Big Society.

Hopefully those amongst us who can out concentrate a fruit fly can see through that though. Personally, I really did hope (but not expect) that this election would, given all of the opportunites presented to it, rise above the banality of party politics and award the long suffering public with a cosmic leap forward in the political culture of this nation. Regrettably thats not the case and the same old dogma is once more ****ing up the lives of those the politicos are supposed to be improving and defending.

Better for you?

things could only get better

Fox Hunting Ban
No smelly fags in pubs.
Relaxed licensing laws.
Better NHS
Loads of money for schools (until recently)

Some things got better for some of us.

+1 for Darcy

Glad things got better for you.

As a died in the wool and not very wealthy Labour voter I can assure you that NuLabour were a big dissapointment after years of Tory misrule.

Still, as long as the foxes were saved eh ?

Still, as long as the foxes were saved eh ?

Wrong thread you need the bull fighting one for that argument.

As a died in the wool and not very wealthy Labour voter I can assure you that NuLabour were a big dissapointment after years of Tory misrule.

Obviously better off with this lot then?

trailmonkey - how about the family tax credit then - that made a real difference to the working poor. I know several folk to whom it made the difference between being able to work and train and to sit on the dole. Pensioners did well out of them as well

Devolution has changed the UK for ever

I do agree they were too timid and wasted the opportunity they had where they could have done more - then squandered all the goodwill in Iraq

minimum wage
European convention on Human Rights
Social charter

Think all early days of nu Labour
Nothing radical about this surely we could all predict cutiing public services anyone care to guess when the last tory govt did not do this I wil take a punt on Hulme as all the ones is my lifetime have done this

As a died in the wool and not very wealthy Labour voter I can assure you that NuLabour were a big dissapointment after years of Tory misrule.

I can't say I'm as dyed in the wool as you, being an emigrant, but even from outside the country, would have always voted left. But I thought the early years weren't too bad to be honest.

NuLab's reign can never be talked about without including the two wars they've dragged us into and that will always cloud any good they did. And it should.

The almost derailed Peace Process in NI back on track (though goodness knows, from recent weeks, there's still work to be done).

And actually, your comment about the foxes was pretty glib. A lot of people (yes, I was one of them, urbane meddling tw4t that I am) felt strongly on this subject. Labour promised a free vote in parliament and it was delivered.

Just going to echo Junkyard's minimum wage - massively fought against by Tories, employers, most of the printed media, yet it was pushed through. And even though the lowest earners still don't earn enough, they'd be earning less if it wasn't there. No point in letting the market decide.

The Tories, Uncle Rupert and The Telegraph have done a marvellous job of spinning us all into thinking for a while that the recession is actually Labour's fault. Yes, they have to take responsibility for some of the debt we're in. But I don't fancy many of the chaps in the city that caused the recession have ever voted Labour.

And anyway, the tories are secretly delighted we're in such debt. They've got us all running in fear of our lives over it and it gives them a perfect excuse to slash and burn.

EDIT: I can only hope that Labour will swing back to the left again (for the likes of you and me) and finds more principles there and that the middle classes realise that even they are not safe from the cuts.

'Letting the Market Decide' is like leaving a dog in a room with enough food to last it a week. It will gorge itself stupid on day one, and will have starved to death by the end.

tj -by the end of their tenure the gap between rich and poor and inequalities based on gender and ethnicity had increased. it would seem that tax credits and increases to pensions had little effect on the wider trend.

tj -by the end of their tenure the gap between rich and poor and inequalities based on gender and ethnicity had increased. it would seem that tax credits and increases to pensions had little effect on the wider trend.

I believe (and I say this with tongue firmly in cheek) that they slowed down the rate at which it's increasing 🙂

Watch it shoot up now though.

they also significantly reduced the educational attainment gap between rich and poor. Mind you I found this funny
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/middle-class-could-be-forced-to-pay-for-things-they-can-afford-201008183010/ ]Middle class forced to pay for things they can afford[/url]

'Letting the Market Decide' is like leaving a dog in a room with enough food to last it a week. It will gorge itself stupid on day one, and will have starved to death by the end

Your grasp of economics seems flawed. It takes far longer than a week to starve a dog.

It also proves the link between socialist wreckers and animal cruelty.