Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Deal between Labour and Lib Dems?

little_legs

Поехали!
Lots of people here have said that Lab/Lib deal is not possible.

This was posted on another forum I frequent:

"I must stress that what follows is rumour only. But it does come from a source on a well known online politics forum who has been accurate in the past. Take this with a pinch of salt, obviously:

Peter Mandelson has passed a seven point document to Nick Clegg offering the following:

1) STV.
2) 500 seat House of Commons.
3) 75% elected House of Lords.
4) Fixed four year parliaments.
5) Brown to resign as Labour leader but stay as PM (not caretaker) until a replacement is elected.
6) Four Lib Dem cabinet seats including Home Secretary and Chief Treasury Secretary.
7) Joint announcement at 5pm on Monday.

Clearly this could be bollocks. After all it is only rumour, regardless of the source. If true it shows Labour's desperation to stay in office and would be incredibly difficult for Clegg to turn down.

As I said, I make no attempt to claim I have knowledge of this, but those who have mentioned it have been right before, particularly during the campaign and particularly regarding the Labour Party."

STV = single transferable vote.

Is this viable?
 
add in some / all of

scrap ID cards
end detention of asylum seekers, and maybe something like a royal commission on immigration
repeal 28 days without trial terror law
some concession on the lib dem tax proposals
some compromise on nuclear power / energy policy / climate change

and I reckon the deal would be on.

PR and government posts alone shouldn't be enough IMO, the lib dems actually have to stand for something as well or it's all pretty pointless.

eta - good start though, and I remain hopeful that this is the way it will go in the end.
 
Lib+Lab wouldn’t have a majority on it’s own, the nationalists would have to be involved. Also, the proposal would need every Labour MP to vote for STV, and many are opposed to it.
 
actually, I've just had it pointed out to me that if the lib dems were given the home secretary role, then presumably they'd be able to write some version of their proposed law to repeal the worst of labours civil liberties destroying laws anyway, so maybe it doesn't need to be an actual precondition.
 
It's quite generous! They should take it. STV ought to be a big prize to the lds – at least most of their members would think so.
 
Lib+Lab wouldn’t have a majority on it’s own, the nationalists would have to be involved. Also, the proposal would need every Labour MP to vote for STV, and many are opposed to it.
SNP has offered an alliance. The SNP and Plaid work closely together in Westminster. And the SDLP take the Labour whip. So arithmetically, that's doable.
 
Lib+Lab wouldn’t have a majority on it’s own, the nationalists would have to be involved. Also, the proposal would need every Labour MP to vote for STV, and many are opposed to it.
if they opposed it in parliament then the lib dems would bring the government down, simple as really.

also, virtually every other party is also in favour of it, so the odd labour mp rebelling wouldn't matter too much.
 
STV = single transferable vote. = crap = PR the way forward. For those in London with the London Mayor will know about this, you get two votes if the gap between your first of the two votes aren't wide enough your second choice comes forward but it can't be the same choice as you made in the first vote, so if you voted say the same guy/gurl twice in your frist vote and your second vote. Your vote won't count....

STV laughable...

This is design to confuse you for who you want to win, do you put your preferable choice forward for the first vote or the second vote?
 
to be clear, you'd prefer a tory government to a labour / lib dem coalition?

I think you maybe need to have a word with yourself tbh.

You're the tory govt supporter here, grasping at the straw of a lib/lab pact to wipie your guilt away. After your afternoon long defence of the lib dem pass laws i think it's you that need to check just where you're heading. Because it ain't nice.

If i were a labour strategists i'd tell them to fuck off, let thgem tie themselves up with Cameron or stand apart - either way they're fucked when the next election comes because everyone now knows what they are, and it will come soon.
 
If Cleeg goes for Cameron's offer of some kind of electoral reform talking shop, and Labour then make their offer public, could Cleeg continue as his party's leader? Could there be mutiny?
 
They stand for fuck all
the proof is in the pudding. Here's my local lib dem mp's voting record from the last parliament.

compare that with a new labour loyalist, and I know who I'd say actually stood for something.

Voted moderately for more EU integration.
Voted strongly against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests. votes
Has never voted on equal gay rights. votes
Voted moderately against a stricter asylum system. votes
Voted very strongly against introducing ID cards. votes
Has never voted on introducing a smoking ban. votes
Voted very strongly for an investigation into the Iraq war. votes
Voted for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. votes
Voted strongly for a wholly elected House of Lords. votes
Voted very strongly against greater autonomy for schools. votes
Voted very strongly against replacing Trident. votes
Voted moderately for a transparent Parliament. votes
Voted very strongly against Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes
Voted very strongly for laws to stop climate change.
 
STV = single transferable vote. = crap = PR the way forward. For those in London with the London Mayor will know about this, you get two votes if the gap between your first of the two votes aren't wide enough your second choice comes forward but it can't be the same choice as you made in the first vote, so if you voted say the same guy/gurl twice your second vote don't count....

STV laughable...
Not quite. You can just vote for one if you prefer. STV is eminently sensible as it allows you to indicate who you hate most, which for many can be more important than saying who you like most. With STV we would have got rid of Thatcher after one term.
 
STV = single transferable vote. = crap = PR the way forward. For those in London with the London Mayor will know about this, you get two votes if the gap between your first of the two votes aren't wide enough your second choice comes forward but it can't be the same choice as you made in the first vote, so if you voted say the same guy/gurl twice in your frist vote and your second vote. You vote won't count....

STV laughable...

It's AV, not STV, that's used for London mayor.
 
It's going to be really, really funny watching the wails of the Lib Dem left cheerleaders when the deal is announced.
 
fuck off, and while your doing it how about answering the question. would you prefer a tory government to a lib/lab alliance.

I just answered your crap question - the implication of which is that your own party will prop up the tories, and you'll support them on this. Yet i'm the tory govt supporter. Odd logic that.
 
STV = single transferable vote. = crap = PR the way forward. For those in London with the London Mayor will know about this, you get two votes if the gap between your first of the two votes aren't wide enough your second choice comes forward but it can't be the same choice as you made in the first vote, so if you voted say the same guy/gurl twice in your frist vote and your second vote. You vote won't count....

STV laughable...

That's AV you're thinking of not STV
 
Back
Top Bottom