Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
The lib dems never considered the possibility of a colaition? Is that what they're telling you? Poor chap!
Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
The lib dems never considered the possibility of a colaition? Is that what they're telling you? Poor chap!
No, it's don't make promises that you can't keep.
I think possibly a few Lib Dems were planning before the election on what areas they might have to compromise on, but I don't think the majority of the parlimentary party thought when making this pledge about the implications, and whether they would realistically be able to stick to it. - That's the mistake they made.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
AKA don't get caught lying.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Hang on, Clegg hand picked a team to draw up a report on what they were going to ditch before the bloody election. That shows a) the party had already decided that coalition was very very likely and b) that none of your 'commitments' was ever serious.
It was a team to consider what would be compromised in the event of a coalition, if the electorate decided not to endorse the parties polices by voting in a Lib Dem government. I’m angry with the party that this was kept so secret and drawn up by Clegg and Alexander ‘s secret groups whilst everyone else (including myself) were going around campaigning to students about tuition fees in good faith. This is the lesson for the future, not to make promises you might not be able to keep if you are planning on compromising, and being more up front about what the party will or won't compromise on.
I think people would have a lot more respect if beforehand the party said we oppose tution fees, but we might have to compromise on areas of our policy if we don't win the election.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You can;t argue that the lib-dems did not expect a coalition then point to long standing plans designed to deal with coalition politics. You cannot. You're extending that original dishonesty into the present if you take that line.
It's clear the scales are starting to fall from your eyes btw.
It's clear the scales are starting to fall from your eyes btw.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
hang on, the raison d'etre of the libdems is coalition, as there's no other way they'll ever get a sniff of power. What you've just said is that they are all too naive and amateurish to be trusted with so much as a parish council!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
or, to put another way, your leadership really fucked you over, didn't they?
They could keep it. They still can. Where they went wrong was signing an agreement with the Tories in which they promised not to keep an earlier promise.
Do you think they should stick to the coalition agreement? Or is it bizarre to think that politicians should stick to agreements they've signed?
Well i've been quite torn whether MPs should abstain or vote against the measure as I don't think they should break the coaltion agreement, but then it was stupid to sign an agreement that broke a promise.
The party is kind of fucked either way. It is quite dissapointing as a party activist, this is how Labour people must have felt when they introduced fees, or went to Iraq. I can kind of understand now why someone would want to stick by their party even when they do rubbish things. I've found myself defending the party over things I don't even agree with as a result.
It's a bit like being married to an abusive partner who you keep making justifications for.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Fuck off, and stick with them - there really is nowhere else for someone like you to go.
Tory party?
Fair point^
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Moon, why have you not responded to my posts?
It's bizarre to expect a poster to respond to questions they've been asked. What we need is posters who are not too bound by the conventions of normal human conversation but who think about each interaction on its own merits and decide how best to proceed.
Your problem froggie is that you haven't learned to deal with the realities of coalition government yet.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Independent has it 56/44 yes/no - (no don't knows/won't vote?)
This was poll with no explanation of what/how the system works/means of course.
Report mentions that the man who the yes posters above claimed has nothing to do with the yes campaign is fronting the yes campaign. Also seems ot suggest the Yes to AV campaign is planning a it doesn't mean anything will change approach.
This was poll with no explanation of what/how the system works/means of course.
Report mentions that the man who the yes posters above claimed has nothing to do with the yes campaign is fronting the yes campaign. Also seems ot suggest the Yes to AV campaign is planning a it doesn't mean anything will change approach.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
what are you wittering on about now? Who has denied Bartley's involvement? He isn't "leading" anything though he'sd just a spokesman. And one of the campaign slogans is "a small change that makes a big difference". That isn't the same as a "nothing will change" approach.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You did.
Also seems to suggest the Yes to AV campaign is planning a it doesn't mean anything will change approach = It hopes that the No camp will not be able to convince people that AV is a dangerous “leap into the unknown”.
Also seems to suggest the Yes to AV campaign is planning a it doesn't mean anything will change approach = It hopes that the No camp will not be able to convince people that AV is a dangerous “leap into the unknown”.
lopsidedbunny
Active Member
I vote for it so just to "so called" screw the MP's lives but it's still going to be the three "main" parties.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Latest YG has
NO - 41% (+2)
Yes -35% (+2)
DK - 17% (-4)
NV - 7%
This contrasts with the ICM poll for the electoral reform society which had:
I would vote ‘Yes’ for the voting system to change to AV: 35%
I would vote ‘No’ – to keep the existing system: 22%
I would not vote in the referendum: 9%
Don’t know: 35%
Peter Kellner suggests a reason for the discrepancy might lie in the YG poll pointing out that 'the referendum is being proposed by the Coalition, whereas ICM’s question does not' - i.e the ICM poll ignores the political realities of the situation. The yes camp have actually used this to back their approach but unfortunately for them YG did the poll without the mention of the coalition and came up with identical results. (So they can't even get the stuff they get wrong right).
Kellner reckons the main reason for the differences is that YG actually explain (albeit briefly) what AV is and what it will entail - which is exactly what we're going to see happening in the run-up to the referendum, so that no matter what the YES people do they're going to be running into the wind in the crucial period - plenty of meat left in the DK's for the NO vote (and even in the yes vote).
NO - 41% (+2)
Yes -35% (+2)
DK - 17% (-4)
NV - 7%
This contrasts with the ICM poll for the electoral reform society which had:
I would vote ‘Yes’ for the voting system to change to AV: 35%
I would vote ‘No’ – to keep the existing system: 22%
I would not vote in the referendum: 9%
Don’t know: 35%
Peter Kellner suggests a reason for the discrepancy might lie in the YG poll pointing out that 'the referendum is being proposed by the Coalition, whereas ICM’s question does not' - i.e the ICM poll ignores the political realities of the situation. The yes camp have actually used this to back their approach but unfortunately for them YG did the poll without the mention of the coalition and came up with identical results. (So they can't even get the stuff they get wrong right).
Kellner reckons the main reason for the differences is that YG actually explain (albeit briefly) what AV is and what it will entail - which is exactly what we're going to see happening in the run-up to the referendum, so that no matter what the YES people do they're going to be running into the wind in the crucial period - plenty of meat left in the DK's for the NO vote (and even in the yes vote).
Similar threads
