Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Toriers & Lib Dems, deal by Monday morning?

as for 'compromising principles' - you do realise that if PR was ever implemented in the UK (most people on urban said they wanted to see some form of PR) then all the parties would have to compromise to some extent.
 
anyway, i'm going to wait and see what the deal is before i condemn the lib dems... i do hope it's not just a bunch of cabinet seats they've opted for.
 
free spirit said:
you've still not explained this one. How could this possibly work?

the only realistic none tory option was a coalition with labour, which labour have walked away from.

ah... I see, you're talking about the option for the lib dems to commit electoral suicide in order to give the labour party a free run at the tories in a new election. The very same labour party that's just told us to go fuck ourselves rather than work with us? Actually more than that, the same labour party who's taken us into an illegal war, introduced a whole raft of authoritarian anti-civil liberties legislation, done fuck all about climate change, fucked up the economy etc etc. you want us to basically give this lot another crack at the tories while the lib dems effectively stand aside?

or do you have something else in mind?
Click to expand...


I just explained to you how:

Why can't you get that you don't have to prop up the tory govt from inside or out? There's simply no need? What do you thin the lib-dems would get hammered at a 2nd election? Why couldn't labour and lib-dem swap 30 seats each? That's easily doable. Piecee of piss.The reason they won't is that the lib-dem leadership today are ideologically committed to the tories.

If you're saying you'd prefer a tory govt out of spite then you're even further away from home than i first suspected. National interest now defined exclusivel as the lib-dem interest. The new politics in action.

Why are you so convinced the lib-dems will be damaged in a 2nd election? What could they have to make that possibility appear?
 
butchersapron said:
Have a look at this short thread -and this article - i'm surprised this wasn't attacked at all over the last few weeks. Maybe the potential PR damage from the lib-dems easy response (attacking the poorest) was too off-putting.
Click to expand...

i see it now. no wonder their negotiations went so smoothly.

is it £17bn a year? where are they going to claw that back from???
 
Louis MacNeice said:
A minority Tory government couldn't be rampant. A Tory party with Lib Dem fall guys is in a much stronger position.

Louis MacNeice
Click to expand...

Indeed, there's no reason why they should even be able to form a govt at all, not without the lib-dems assent to the Queen's speech.

On top of that the proposed coalition makes cuts and a stepped up attack on the conditions of work and daily life inevitable - under a minority govt they wouldn't pass.
 
fakeplasticgirl said:
but clegg said before the election that in the event of a hung parliament he would try and work with the largest party first. i don't understand why people think tory rampant is better than the tories tempered by the lib dems.
Click to expand...

Because Tory minority govt does not equal Tory rampant.
 
butchersapron said:
I just explained to you how:

Why can't you get that you don't have to prop up the tory govt from inside or out? There's simply no need? What do you thin the lib-dems would get hammered at a 2nd election? Why couldn't labour and lib-dem swap 30 seats each? That's easily doable. Piecee of piss.The reason they won't is that the lib-dem leadership today are ideologically committed to the tories.

If you're saying you'd prefer a tory govt out of spite then you're even further away from home than i first suspected. National interest now defined exclusivel as the lib-dem interest. The new politics in action.

Why are you so convinced the lib-dems will be damaged in a 2nd election? What could they have to make that possibility appear?
Click to expand...
the reason they can't swap 30 lib dem / labour seats is because the labour party has just walked away from a coalition with us.

if labour were to actually offer a full partnership deal with the lib dems in a new election in which labour would stand aside in lib dem marginals and lib dems did the same for labour, then you could have a point, but unless I've missed something, this hasn't been offered, so your talking crap.

as to why the lib dems would be damaged in a new election... the lib dems have been campaigning on PR on the basis that they can make coalition government work. This is the first test of whether that's actually true or not, so if we end up not being able to make it work and forcing a new election straight away, then we'd be screwed as labour by themselves or tory by themselves would be the only realistic options for government (outside of there being an officially announced in advance lab/lib anti tory alliance)
 
1%er said:
What a fucking mess, the world is laughing at the UK.

British kids being killed to spread democracy around the world, what a great example
Click to expand...

Hardly. Much of the rest of the world is probably wondering what all the fuss is about. A fuss is only being made because we had decisive victors for decades, what is happening this week is not very unusual or unusually shambolic or dirty in the grand scheme of things. And of course the media are hyping it up and last night the right-wing media started to drool.

The real test is how effective the new government will be, and that wont be clear for a while.
 
free spirit said:
the reason they can't swap 30 lib dem / labour seats is because the labour party has just walked away from a coalition with us.

if labour were to actually offer a full partnership deal with the lib dems in a new election in which labour would stand aside in lib dem marginals and lib dems did the same for labour, then you could have a point, but unless I've missed something, this hasn't been offered, so your talking crap.

as to why the lib dems would be damaged in a new election... the lib dems have been campaigning on PR on the basis that they can make coalition government work. This is the first test of whether that's actually true or not, so if we end up not being able to make it work and forcing a new election straight away, then we'd be screwed as labour by themselves or tory by themselves would be the only realistic options for government (outside of there being an officially announced in advance lab/lib anti tory alliance)
Click to expand...

Um, i think i'll not be taking too much notice of what you think is impossible right now.Your record on predictions doesn't look too hot at the minute. That aside, why wouldn't the lib-dems be interested in that? It's entirely practicable? Is it out of childish spite? Or is it because they have no longer have natural political affinity with labour/ anti-toryism - because they are, in effect now a second tory party?

Why? That doesn't make any sort of sense at all. You/other lib-dem mugs spent ages arguing there's a real groundswell of support for PR, we've had poll after poll trotted out showing this. Do you really think all this would just dissappear into the ether? That people would be too dumb to work out the problems? I think not. I think any possible collapse in your support would be for far more mundane reasons - they've had a look and now they don't like what you're offering. In fact the sort of deal i outlined may well be your best hope of getting out of this pathetic mess you've made of everything.
 
free spirit said:
it's a shit state of a affairs, and I'm gutted that a deal couldn't be worked out between labour, the lib dems and others, but now that's apparently not a possibility, I'll not be happy about it, but won't blame the MP's for whatever they end up deciding.

I'll not forget that labour would prefer a tory government than to work with the lib dems though.
Click to expand...

Come now, please dont try to put all the blame on Labour. Both Labour and the Lib Dems failed to get an election result that would have made anti-tory permutations more workable.

As soon as the results were known the Lib Dems faced two unpalatable options. In hindsight it is pretty easy to see that the Tory option was always the more likely, but they wanted to get as much out of the Tories as possible, and not make it seem like they were completely ruling out the Labour option. All the cards that could have been played were played yesterday, and if the Lib Dems had gone with Labour then they would have had just as much heat, if not more, than they are going to get from siding with the Tories.
 
A lib lab coalition would have been a major hostage to fortune - it would be lacking in a democratic mandate and very unstable. It's collapse would be inevitiable and that could very well lead to the tories winning a majority at the subsequent election.

I dont know why the lib dems are pushing for a formal coaltion rather than 'enabling and supply' - it will tie them closer to what is very likely to be an unpopular government (also seriously lacking in a popular mandate) and they will be crucified at the next election.

Will Clegg be able get the backing from his mps for a coalition?
 
I heard possibly :

Clarke and Cable to Treasury

Laws (is it) to education

Clegg: Deputy Prime Minister

Which means Osbourne to Trade and Gove to I am not sure where!!
 
Lib Dem apologists should also consider that they have potentially enabled the Tories to ditch some of the wishy washy policies & cabinet members that Cameron favoured, thus ensuring the new Tory regime is even further to the right than it would have been if they had won outright.
 
butchersapron said:
Um, i think i'll not be taking too much notice of what you think is impossible right now.Your record on predictions doesn't look too hot at the minute. That aside, why wouldn't the lib-dems be interested in that? It's entirely practicable? Is it out of childish spite? Or is it because they have no longer have natural political affinity with labour/ anti-toryism - because they are, in effect now a second tory party?
Click to expand...
we'd not be interested in it because it's not on offer.

it's like continually walking to the counter in macdonalds and asking for a pizza, no matter how much you might want it, it's just not going to happen, because it's not on the menu. If labour want to put it on the menu, then that's a different matter, but it's not there now, and I can't see it being put there after labour walking away from any chance of a deal this afternoon.

I also think it'd still quite likely be doomed to failure as I'm pretty sure enough of the electorate will not want to risk a repeat of this crap to undo any advantage gained from anything other than the most rock solid of lib / lab alliances.

butchersapron said:
Why? That doesn't make any sort of sense at all. You/other lib-dem mugs spent ages arguing there's a real groundswell of support for PR, we've had poll after poll trotted out showing this. Do you really think all this would just dissappear into the ether? That people would be too dumb to work out the problems? I think not. I think any possible collapse in your support would be for far more mundane reasons - they've had a look and now they don't like what you're offering. In fact the sort of deal i outlined may well be your best hope of getting out of this pathetic mess you've made of everything.
Click to expand...
but we don't have PR, we still would only have fptp, meaning that any hung parliament returned would be likely to be on an absolute knife edge just like this one has been, and enough people would think that if we can't come to an agreement on coalition first time around, then they're not going to give us a second chance at cocking it up again.

IIRC the tories were only something like 16,000 votes off winning an outright majority of seats, you're deluding yourself if you think they'd not manage to pull at least those votes in against an almost certain stay at home from disillusioned lib dem, and probably labour voters.
 
This important news via twitter.

markthomasinfo Oh hurry up and make it official so I can get on with the job of offically despising Con/Lib government.
 
free spirit said:
we'd not be interested in it because it's not on offer.

it's like continually walking to the counter in macdonalds and asking for a pizza, no matter how much you might want it, it's just not going to happen, because it's not on the menu. If labour want to put it on the menu, then that's a different matter, but it's not there now, and I can't see it being put there after labour walking away from any chance of a deal this afternoon.

I also think it'd still quite likely be doomed to failure as I'm pretty sure enough of the electorate will not want to risk a repeat of this crap to undo any advantage gained from anything other than the most rock solid of lib / lab alliances.


but we don't have PR, we still would only have fptp, meaning that any hung parliament returned would be likely to be on an absolute knife edge just like this one has been, and enough people would think that if we can't come to an agreement on coalition first time around, then they're not going to give us a second chance at cocking it up again.

IIRC the tories were only something like 16,000 votes off winning an outright majority of seats, you're deluding yourself if you think they'd not manage to pull at least those votes in against an almost certain stay at home from disillusioned lib dem, and probably labour voters.
Click to expand...

Well put it on the bloody table then! But of course, as i think everyone now can see for themselves, the lib-dems are not at all interested in such a anti-tory coalition, even one guaranteed not to harm them own standing. Their natural inclination today is to work with the tories, not out of imposition but rather, out of clear choice and sense of personal or party interest - puffed up as 'the national interest' of course.

If your reading of your own party is correct and its naturally anti-tory - that was after all the basis for your very confident predictions that the lib-dems would never join a tory govt, that they would never settle for a deal that only contained PR, that members and MPs would revolt, rebel, defect and desert if such a scenario came to pass (and lo it did but they didn't) then they should not only welcome something like i outlined but be actively demanding it right now, pressurising their local parties, their councillors, whatever internal bodies exist, rather than going oh no the labour party wouldn't roll over for us so oiut of spite we're going to give the people of this country a tory govt.

But you're not are you, because the dominant tone of the party is not one open to that, it's a tory party mark 2. It's lead by tories, it shares a program of austerity, cuts and attacks on the working class with the tories. You might as well merge with them.

Why the hell do you think that only tory voters would be the ones to turn out in increased numbers? On what grounds? The labour party in fact, was the only party down to its absolute bare-bones grassroots vote - they're the only one with room to expand their vote upwards - and they would to stop the tory govt that you're prepared to be part of..
 
The News channels are showing hundreds of people outside the Cabinet Office and the HOC, this is quite new for many of us, surely the last time an election result was so anticipated and people out on the streets was 79?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
Fire in Tower Block in Dagenham, London, Monday 26 August 2024.
Replies
27
Views
1K
moochedit
moochedit
Fozzie Bear
Neo Nazi has-beens Blood and Honour sanctioned by the Treasury
Replies
16
Views
377
The39thStep
The39thStep
steveseagull
Fylde By-election 2024
Replies
10
Views
754
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
Rochdale by-election
24 25 26 27 28
Replies
819
Views
37K
TopCat
TopCat
tim
Filth by name; thick by nature. A thread for banal police stupidity
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
6K
Boris Sprinkler
Boris Sprinkler
Back
Top Bottom