Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Did You Vote LibDem?

Did You Vote LibDem?


  • Total voters
    103
i just don't understand - WHY is labour better??? i actually hate new labour almost as much as the tories.

I dislike all three too. They will all pursue neo-liberal economics and will all make the poor pay for their crisis. Very little divergence between the three.

Nonetheless, within that very narrow spectrum Labour still come out the best for the majority. The new Tory/Whig government will look to slash immediately and with little thought for the impact on working class communities, whereas Labour whilst still intending to slash were proposing stalling the cuts to lessen the immediate burden and in the hope that the private sector would pick up and be able to relieve the unemployment burden when the public sector job losses accelerate.

The wing of the Liberals that is dominant at the moment is essentially the Thatcherite wing, combined with the Tories and with a massive fuck-off deficit that they intend to pay back through cuts rather than increases in progressive tax spells bad news for the vast majority.
 
I dislike all three too. They will all pursue neo-liberal economics and will all make the poor pay for their crisis. Very little divergence between the three.

Nonetheless, within that very narrow spectrum Labour still come out the best for the majority. The new Tory/Whig government will look to slash immediately and with little thought for the impact on working class communities, whereas Labour whilst still intending to slash were proposing stalling the cuts to lessen the immediate burden and in the hope that the private sector would pick up and be able to relieve the unemployment burden when the public sector job losses accelerate.

The wing of the Liberals that is dominant at the moment is essentially the Thatcherite wing, combined with the Tories and with a massive fuck-off deficit that they intend to pay back through cuts rather than increases in progressive tax spells bad news for the vast majority.

but labour didn't want to try form a coalition with the lib dems it transpired... perhaps if labour or the lib dems had taken a few more votes off the tories that would have been a possibility, but sadly it wasn't. the lib dems, at the very least, were going to have to vote through the budget...
 
but labour didn't want to try form a coalition with the lib dems it transpired... perhaps if labour or the lib dems had taken a few more votes off the tories that would have been a possibility, but sadly it wasn't. the lib dems, at the very least, were going to have to vote through the budget...

The LibDems needn't have even voted them through the Queen's Speech.
 
but labour didn't want to try form a coalition with the lib dems it transpired... perhaps if labour or the lib dems had taken a few more votes off the tories that would have been a possibility, but sadly it wasn't. the lib dems, at the very least, were going to have to vote through the budget...

Dunno, the Liberals are saying that but Labour are saying the Liberals only opened up discussions to put the pressure on Cameron. Inclined to believe the latter because Clegg is far closer to the Tories than Labour and because the Liberals clearly saw going in with Labour as riskier than the Tories.

The Liberals did have a third option, which is not to go into coalition at all. Like you say, they'd have either had to agree the budget (and won concessions for their support) or allowed another GE to be called in October. They clearly though the latter option would affect them negatively.
 
Where are they now? :(

Here - I have already said how disappointed and angry I feel on another thread. However, as a lot of people in this thread have said I live in a constituency where the LibDems are the only opposition to the Tories so I voted in the hope it might keep them out. It didn't, I am ashamed, there we are

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/results/constituency/c76.stm

CON HOLD
CON_CON.gif



Top three parties at a glance

Political Party Vote Share % Conservative

59.5 Liberal Democrat

28.2 Labour

7.1
Constituency Swing 7.8% From LD to CON
 
Dunno, the Liberals are saying that but Labour are saying the Liberals only opened up discussions to put the pressure on Cameron. Inclined to believe the latter because Clegg is far closer to the Tories than Labour and because the Liberals clearly saw going in with Labour as riskier than the Tories.

probably a bit of both, but it is true that a whole load of labour mps came out saying they weren't in favour of a the 'rainbow' coalition, so i'm not completely blaming the lib dems for that falling through.

ahhh well :( will see what happens next time!
 
Proud of yourself?

Yes - I stopped a potentially religious nutter A-List candidate from doing their thing in my local area and kept it Lib Dem and also got a slightly toned down Tory Government running the country. Best result out of a bad set of circumstances - whether it will work or not is another matter.
 
The choices for the Lib Dems were:

* Let the Tories try to form a minority government. Once DUP's whip and Sinn Fein's absence were taken into account, this left them 8 seats short of an overall majority. We can speculate about what this might mean but I think the Tories could have stumbled on for a while on this basis. Eventually they would have had to call another election though and it's tough to predict what would happen then.

* Work with the Tories. There are pros and cons to this, frankly, and it comes down to whether you think that trying to reach a consensus is to be applauded or scorned. I think that the Liberals and the Tories together is a different proposition to the Tories alone. Although it is not something I welcome, I can recognise the practical reality of the fact that the Tories won this election. In the face of this, I would rather that there is a presence in government that acts against some of their views. Whether the Lib Dems are capable of doing this, I can only wait and see. I doubt it, but I can live in hope. It's going to happen either way.
 
Yes - I stopped a potentially religious nutter A-List candidate from doing their thing in my local area and kept it Lib Dem and also got a slightly toned down Tory Government running the country. Best result out of a bad set of circumstances - whether it will work or not is another matter.

Stroud/Burstow?
 
I have to also bear in mind that if I am serious about favouring PR, it will become the norm for no party to have overall control. This will necessitate different parties working together. So it'd be pretty hypocritical to be totally against the idea now.
 
I have to also bear in mind that if I am serious about favouring PR, it will become the norm for no party to have overall control. This will necessitate different parties working together. So it'd be pretty hypocritical to be totally against the idea now.

This.
 
I have to also bear in mind that if I am serious about favouring PR, it will become the norm for no party to have overall control. This will necessitate different parties working together. So it'd be pretty hypocritical to be totally against the idea now.

What, it doesn't matter who the parties are as long as they work together? A curiously unpolitical postion.
 
What, it doesn't matter who the parties are as long as they work together? A curiously unpolitical postion.

More that I recognise that 33%+ of the voters disagree with me. Am I to insist that their views are completely disregarded? Whilst this has a certain appeal, it doesn't fit well with my general life philosophy.

I also detest tribal party politics in any case. If I had free reign, political parties would be abolished and you'd have a FPTP system in which you actually had to find out what the person you were voting for really thought about things.
 
Why have elections at all then?

Good question. Right now, it doesn't appear that there is much point at all. Might as well just alternate it every ten years between Labour and the Tories.

I'd like to get to a position where there *is* a point. Where you have a party political system with proportional representation, so that the make-up of the government does genuinely shift and has to represent people according to that shift. Either that or (totally pie in the sky) you have FPTP but you don't have political parties. But that's never, ever going to happen.
 
To keep the Tories out?

Oops.
It didn't work because not enough other people also voted against the Tories. Such as yourself, for example.

If each party had won 200 seats, do you think that the Lib Dems would still have formed a coalition with the Tories and put Cameron in Number 10?
 
Back
Top Bottom