Coalition – the first hundred days – falling out or loving in?

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 and 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 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.

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?

Not sure of what your point is here

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

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

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.

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

Think they would have a say under PR and any other fair ish electoral system

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

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

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 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.[/quote]
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

who you assume will honour what they say in the manifesto …have the Lib dems?

I asume I'm missing something here

Yes I cleverly used votes rather than seats to make my argument look stronger 😉

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 **** 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
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.